Talk:Fjordman

Speedy deletion

Fjordman is a well known blogger in the field of Islam in Europe. His posts are frequently quoted all over the internet (in Wikipedia as well) and therefore it is important for people to know who and what he is. This article is still a stub, but it should be added to, not deleted. Misheu 10:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources (WP:RS) supporting these claims. 83.233.154.50 10:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion is easy, actually contributing is a bit more difficult. Why don't you join the effort instead of working only on destroying what others worked on? As a researcher of Islam, I can tell you that Fjordman's articles are widely quoted. Do a google search and see. If you need more proof, how about you bring up a specific topic (I'm sure you're involved in this field, otherwise you wouldn't know what to delete) and I'll show you how Fjordman affected the debate on it? Misheu 11:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

All I'm asking for is that you, if the blog indeed is notable, provide reliable second hand sources asserting this. If finding such sources through google is such an easy task, I can not see why it is too much to ask that you present them. Also, please make sure you abide Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks - suggesting I'm only trying to "destroy" what others have worked on is unfounded and moreover, insulting. 83.233.154.50 15:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not a registered user, and therefore I'd like to make sure you're not just deleting left and right without reason. I looked up your contributions and found they're mostly "speedy deletion" requests, which makes me wonder why. That's the reason for my comment and i'm sorry that you got insulted. I wouldn't have reacted this way if I saw you were registered and contributing.

Can you give me a source saying the New York Times is important? How would you go about proving it?

A few facts about Fjordman: 1. his defunct site already has more than a million hits. 2. he guest writes on quite a few blogs and sites, some of which are featured in wikipedia and his articles are carried on various blogs and news sites: (FrontPageMag, Jihad Watch, Brussels Journal, Faith Freedom International, Little Green Footballs and Daily Pundit among others (this is just the first two pages of google 3. he serves as a news source for some wikipedia articles, and regardless whether you agree or not that it should be this way, people should be able to check out *who* this guy is, so they can decide on their own whether they believe what he writes or not. 4. a google search of 'fjordman' gives 265,000 responses. 5. He is a leading figure in affecting the discussion about Islam and the West. Things Fjordman writes are copied over and over all over the web. In general bloggers who go against the media will usually not appear there, so I'm unclear how you want me to prove that he's quoted all over (besides the facts i bring above) Misheu 18:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I could. See WP:RS as well as WP:ATT and WP:NOTABILITY. It's about WP policy and it's not something I made up. If you have a problem with them, take it up with Jimbo. Also, that I was writing that from an anon IP (which is a shared IP) is not an excuse for being incivil (see WP:CIV). Just do everybody a favour and read through the policies. It doesn't matter if you write 10 pages full of arguments for keeping the article if you're not following the policies.

As for the 265,000 google hits, I'd like to inform you that Fjordman is an actual surname, in use in all the Scandinavian countries (Norway, Denmark, Sweden). Mackan 18:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, delete the article. Fjordman is not going to appear in the New York Times, but he is affecting how millions of people think about Islam. Obviously that is not good enough for Wikipedia. I personally believe that having the article would encourage people to add to it. Deleting it would make sure nobody ever would. As for your claim, for a very common surname, Fjordman appears in all the top hits on Google in both English and Norwegian. I did not check Danish and Swedish.

As for being insulting - try talking before express deleting and people might be a bit more civil. I was under the impression until now that that was Wikipedia policy. I guess I was wrong. Misheu 18:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please point out the particular policy you suggest I have violated, and please be specific about what passage. Mackan 19:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The "fact" that he "affects how millions of people think about Islam" does certainly make him notable - but you need reliable sources stating he does this. Mackan 19:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm suggesting you are being uncivil. I am sorry you feel insulted by what I wrote, but that does not make what you write more civil. I am insulted by your actions. If you want people to write more you do not put an "express delete" notice. I do not have "reputable sources" about Fjordman, I only have reputable sources publishing his articles. He was never interviewed by anybody. However, his blog and his writings are widely quoted (and where do I find a source that says that? it is simply a fact). That is one good reason to have a wikipedia article about him. I do have many, many blogs who quote him. Do you want me to start listing references to his works? Btw, if you google search for Fjordman in Norwegian, Swedish or Danish you will see references to him on debate forums, without any links to his blog. He is a known phenomena Misheu 19:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Please_do_not_take_it_personally. There is nothing incivil in nominating an article for speedy deletion. Mackan 21:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

and there is nothing uncivil about pointing out that the IP you were using was busy speedy deleting things and did not make any significant contribution to wikipedia. I don't know why you got insulted by it. I'm glad that you know all the wiki guidelines by heart. By me, being civil means voicing an opinion before rushing to delete, and not doing it hiding behind an IP.

but, ok, since you want to dicuss policy. I read the speedy delete criteria. I do not agree with you that this article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". The article does assert the importance. You don't want to accept it, but that's not part of the speedy deletion criteria.

Please note the following:

Non-notable subjects with their importance asserted: Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". If the article gives a claim that might be construed as making the subject notable, it should be taken to a wider forum. However, articles with only a statement like "This guy was like so friggin' notable!" can be deleted per CSD A1 because it gives no context about the subject.

In other words, you do not stand up to the criteria needed. But thank you for giving me an insight into wiki legality. Misheu 22:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, enough with the incivility and sarcasm already..! "Hiding behind an IP"? Using an IP is far more revealing than using some random username, such as Misheu, and if you edit with an IP, you can expect to have the most basic of edits questioned, and sometimes abusively so, because many less experienced editors seem to think it's OK as long as it's "only IP's". Well, FYI it isn't, "comment on content, not on the contributor" WP:NPA. The "has a million hits" figure, that one you just basically pulled out of thin air in an attempt to save the article, after I nominated it, where's the source for that? I'm not sure whether such a desperate attempt to keep the article will disqualify the speedy deletion reqest, but that's up to the reviewing admin to decide, not me. Mackan 22:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing incivil about nominating an article for deletion, and editors are under no obligation to provide sources if they did their good faith best to find them, and couldn't. I agree that this article doesn't assert notability, and the attacks on other users are really incivil. I suggest that everyone just be cool and relax. --Haemo 04:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The "original" article, before I started adding more and more based on our conversation said:

His articles and claims are widely quoted around the blogosphere.

I know it's short, but that's it. That is the reason this article has value. I continue to stand behind it.

I'm a pretty new wikiped, and all i know is that this message popped up saying this article is going to be deleted. I now realize (i think.. no sarcasm intended) - that you are not responsible for deleting? You just put this label and somebody else will decide on the topic? I was not aware that it won't be deleted by you two minutes later just because you want to. As it happens, I also edit in other wikipedias in which such things (deletion because somebody doesn't 'like' hte topic) are quite common and tend to happen within minutes. I'm therefore extremely touchy on getting a "fair trial". I do not mind that this article will stand scrutiny and be deleted. I do mind that it will be deleted by somebody who has a personal issue on the topic. The only way I can judge such things, is by looking up the user contribution and seeing whether other such articles are deleted by them regularly, etc.

Add to that that two articles on the same issue (fjordman and Brussels Journal, which are two well known european blogs critical of Islam - got your speedy delete notice at exactly the same time, and I jumped to the conclusion that you were not looking at what the article said (ie, why it's important), but rather what the article was about (ie, the blog). I apologize for jumping to conclusions, but I hope you see why.

Back to the point - this figure comes from his page. I'll fix the article so it says that.

And please, after asking me not to be sarcastic, and pointing out I was uncivil - why speak about "desperate" attempts? Please, assume others don't know better and try to lead by example. Being legal does not mean being civil. I apologize for my original response, and I ask - please let's discuss the article, as you say.

In a way, I am thankful for your notice, since it did cause me to try and think of reasons to prove my point, which I admit I found hard. Fjordman is an independent blogger who was never interviewed and his articles are not carried by major newspapers. His claims sometimes have no factual basis. However, he is extremely popular and what he writes is rewritten so many times, that it becomes facts. As I said, I'm a researcher in the field of Islam and every time I look something on the web, I run across Fjordman's blog.

As for IP. I'm willing to admit an IP gives more info. Except that you don't agree with the info it gave me (that you work only on deleting things) and so I'm really at a loss as to what you wanted me to do.

Again, please assume that others might be newbies, and might have no idea why you want to speedy delete. Especially since I think you do not fulfill what wikipedia calls the narrow criteria for such deletions (on both blog entries you chose to delete). Misheu 04:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the same editor - however, you should note that both of your claims are not to notability. Simply claiming "this person's ideas are talked about a lot on blogs" or "this website gets lots of hits" are not necessarily claims to notability. Basically, the idea is that you have to give some specific claims of where, or how, this topic is being noticed, or important - i.e. they have to talk about the subject, not just his ideas or claims. It's a subtle difference, but it's there. I'm sure you can do that - try trawling through some of the blogs which mention him; I'm sure you'd be able to find a couple of comments or reliable sources there. --Haemo 04:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, my comment was to the original editor who posted the delete notice. Thank you for your suggestions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Misheu (talk • contribs) 05:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 - "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources".83.233.154.50 08:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So by default anybody who's well known in the blogosphere is outside of wikipedia material? Misheu 08:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I quoted a WP policy, if you have any questions about it, please see the policy page. Mackan 09:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The source does not come to show that Fjordman is an expert. It comes to show that he's thought of as an expert. The quote comes from a well known person (Robert Spencer), who does fit within the policy. Also, in this case, "it is relevant to their notability" Misheu 10:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

At this point the article does make claims for the significance of its subject, so the claimed criteria for speedy deletion is not met. Andyvphil 14:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, at least the criteria for speedy deletion are not met. This discussion should be concluded. --benjamil (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think recent events support benjamil's view. Clearly, "Fjordman" is an important figure in understanding the inspirations and reasons for the 2011 Norway attacks. Charlie 06:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fjordman

I nominated this article for deletion. Mackan 08:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. by going around and removing references to his blog you're just proving my point, though. I prefer people have a way to know who they're quoting. Misheu 08:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, proving my point. I do not quote Fjordman on Wikipedia, but many other people did and do. Misheu 10:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed one reference to Fjordman, from Tensta, because it was wholly inappropriate and blogs are not WP:RS. Mackan 10:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is it inappropriate? I think it illustrates the situation there quite nicely. Doing a bit more digging, I found the original, so it seems the translation was accurate after all. Misheu 11:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I find the entire "blogs are not reliable sources" argument weak. The WP:RS "definition" is weak itself. So, the NYT is "reliable"? The Weekly Standard is "reliable"? Fjordman is an author, of substantial note. His wikipedia entry is merely a marker...recording his existence and referencing his work...not establising or destroying the credibility of his work.User:gtiness

The definition of 'reliable' has to be somewhat subjective. But it's particularly important in biographical articles that the sources are reliable to avoid defamation based on spurious claims; that doesn't seem to apply in this case, and from what I've read I'd agree that he's probably a notable blogger, but I'm not aware of any reliable sources on the person in question which would allow us to create a verifiable article. IMHO that's the real issue here, not notability or politics... if you can find reliable sources of biographical information then I'm sure you'll be able to convince people that the article should stay. Mark Grant 17:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

since you're talking about somebody who works under a pseudonym and keeps his private life private, i doubt you'll find anything. That doesn't negate the fact that his opinions are widely quoted. this is what makes him notable and a subject for a wikipedia article. Misheu 21:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I too understand the difficulty the current framework places wikipedia in. I think fjordman highlights a tension between traditional concepts of "the author" and newer concepts of "the author". I'd simply urge regular participants (editors, authorities) to find a way to "fit him in". The best biographical information I can find on him is here (but, it's another blog!): http://kleinverzet.blogspot.com/2006/02/fjordman-files.html[1] User:gtiness

I agree with the last poster. Although the fact that Fjordman is a pseudonym with no verifiable identity, and although I am currently unable to point at a wealth of examples where a pseudonym has acquired notability, I know of at least one such case: The author of the Cocain Romance, who was unknown by anything other than his pseudonym for about half a century after the novel was first published (see references in that article). On account of the novel and his impact he had to be considered notable, but no biographical information was available. In this light, the issue isn't even entirely new: The question should be if Wikipedia policies should be interpreted in so strict a manner as to exclude mention of a persona whose works have a visible impact in a given field. My opinion about this question of interpretation would be that no, they shouldn't, but this is clearly a subjective matter. --benjamil (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Item re Muslim Rape Wave in Sweden

His oft-repeated reference to a Muslim rape wave in Sweden was in fact a spike in reported rapes from 2004-2005 caused by a widening of the legal definition of rape.

Sentence deleted with the explanation that, I deleted a so-called 'refutation' of one of Fjordman's positions which was clearly biased and offered a link to youtube as its source. How was this biased? Do you have sources claiming otherwise? Are youtube videos not allowed to use as reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guftafs (talk • contribs) 14:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Some study and/or detailed information about the changed definition would be better. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a piece of advice: Google "sweden rape 2008". You will see (as long as you're not denying reality) that the Muslim Rape Wave is not a spike, but a sad fact. Swedish girls get there hair dyed in darker colors to avoid sexual harassment by muslims. Kind regards, Christian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.142.163.156 (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

References

"anti-Muslim" vs. "critical of Islam"

This edit states as edit summary that "we already knew" that "anti-Muslim" violates NPOV. I don't see how. Am I being dense? To me it seems clearer and equivalent in meaning. Can anyone cite the relevant policy and/or explain? If not, I'm inclined to revert for clarity. "Critical of Islam" was already used in the lead. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

If you can't figure out why "anti-Muslim" is not neutral language or factually correct, maybe you should stop coming here. Dubyaninja (talk) 07:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ownership much? I compromised by putting it back only in the sentence referring to how he is cited. In those sources his stance on Moslem immigration is referenced, not on whether people should convert from Islam. So while accommodating your concern that there is an important difference, I have used the term that better fits that context. I would better understand your problem with "anti-Muslim" if you spelled it out. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Alive

When we know next to nothing about the personal details of the life of Fjordman, how can we know whether or not he is dead or alive?VR _talk 04:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

We can't, so it's wise to assume he is until we learn otherwise from a reliable source.Yngvadottir (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

He is still with us, as you can see in this recent blog wars with Fjordman at the epicentre. —189.136.167.141 (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik?

Multiple sources are now saying Fjordman is in fact Anders Behring Breivik, the perpetrator of the 2011 Oslo attacks. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be total misinformation. I am striking out my comment. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

nope. one. and it would appear that fjordman continues to blog at gatesofvienna post the reportage of breivik being taken into custody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.160.188 (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

He has given his account to another person as long as he is in prison. --82.113.99.150 (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It is very clear that he is not and never was Fjordman. If you look at his contributions to document.no, you'll see him having debates with Fjordman. See for example the posting at 2009-12-03 01:21:04 where he responds to Fjordman or the one at 2009-12-02 00:56:39 where he says he wasn't familiar with Fjordman's work until 2008. -- 144.32.126.12 (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik indicates that he is a big fan of Fjordman, see his manifesto [2], that is notable enough to include if some blogger who isn't that wide read like Fjordman deserves a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.133.21 (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately Fjordman is being thrown under a bus by the Blogosphere. If a criminal takes quotes and builds a manifesto. it does not mean the author supports the actions of a psychotic. I have placed a link to his denial on the site. I expect it to be removed. I have noticed tha Fjordman has disabled comments on that site, I wonder if the guy is being harassed. --Searchengineman (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What makes a comment posted under the name "Baron Bodissey" in the blog "Gates of Vienna" a citeable source for anything related to "Fjordman"? How is it encyclopaedically valid to write sentences like "it may be falsely reported that..." ? -- Seelefant (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

.

Actually, if you read the Breivik Manifesto, it would appear that fjordman IS Breivik. The two writing styles are identical, as is the content. In addition, Breivik is always careful to introduce and cite quotes from other authors - whereas with fjordman the new topic just rides on to the last with no introduction. He is assuming you know he is fjordman. Some more investigation is requited here, if anyone has the time - but what is the betting that fjordman goes off-line for the forseable future.... .

Can someone please update the page to the latest version? It is embarrassing if Wikipedia spreads this misinformation. If you read the manifest you will see that much of it consists of articles by Fjordman. It is not quoted in the usual ways one would expect, which is the likely reason why this confusion started in the first place. Each section, including the section where the author supposedly claims to be Fjordman begins with an attribution "By Fjordman" as can easily be verified. ( Johannes ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.203.215.9 (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Tatelyle (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Classic Original Research, but I suspect you've been looking at the sections that were lifted from Fjordman. I easily found usage errors in a brief look at the section on Catholicism vs. Protestantism; Fjordman's English is much better. Also look above; there are several examples of them engaging each other in online forums. In any case, it's not up to you or me as encyclopedia editors to determine this very serious matter; and all reliable sources are saying it was only a rumour and is now discredited. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 Norway attacks

This section should be removed. It is clearly WP:COATRACK. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the Breivik article, but not here. The fact that Fjordman quotes someone else's writing is not sufficiently relevant to the Fjordman article to drag in the author, along with a denial, etc. I haven't removed it yet, but I came close. I'll give others a chance to comment first.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I removed it on those grounds when it was first introduced. All the more so since the sources - including the Dutch one - are all saying the idea that Fjordman is Breivik was a rumour that has since been discredited. (I don't think it merits inclusion in the article on Breivik, but I'll leave that for those working on that one.) There are at least 2 reliable sources for Breivik having called Fjordman a major influence, so I think it should be mentioned, particularly since one, in Aftenposten, is all about Fjordman, but it's out of all proportion to have a section on that. It's part of the section on his influence. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've now removed it and the discredited rumor again, but added the Aftenposten source and another Norwegian newspaper source. Those can be used to support the statement that the rumor is discredited, if it is decided that that should be here, but I don't think it should, for BLP reasons. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Moving it to the blog part of the article is a significant improvement. I have reworded it because I think it's awkward. I still think it's awkward, frankly. I've also replaced "self-admitted perpetrator" with "accused". Breivik's confession doesn't need to be part of this article, and a confession, in and of itself, does not mean he is guilty. He has not been convicted yet, and we shouldn't drag in his many controversial problems into this article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I read this discussion after my brief entry in the article. maybe i missed something. also, there are suspicions that fjordman actually is breivik. if fjordman stops posting from now on, this is an indication, but of course no proof. Maximilian (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Faulty introduction to quote

"He distinguishes his views from Nazism:

The Nazis believed that whites, and blondes in particular, had the right to colonize and eradicate others. But the policy we follow today could be described as reversed Nazism, since it is based on the assumption that whites should have fewer rights than others and can be colonized and ethnically cleansed with impunity.[23]"

The introduction "He distinguishes his views from Nazism:" is faulty. If you read the quote carefully you will find that he is much closer to describing his own views as very similar to Nazism. He is criticizing the opposite view, the anti-Nazi, multicultural, tolerant western countries current position.

I will not change this myself, because there are obviously other editors working on this article, which has become interesting because the perpetrator of the recent Oslo killings has referred to this person. Another reason is that English is not my first language.

But I can suggest other introductions which would be more appropriate: He distinguishes his views from anti-Nazism. He distinguishes his views from anti-Nazi, multicultural, tolerant western countries current position. He describes his views as very close to Nazism. for example. The word "we" in the second sentence of the quote does not refer to Fjordman and his friends, it refers to the position of western governments and people in the multicultural, tolerant western world.

These words in the introduction of the next quote are probably faulty too. "He rejects accusations of racism:"

The following quote does not support this conclusion/introduction by the editor who wrote it.

"The translator used for the radical Swedish left-wing website "Expo" material is a poster calling himself Truumax, who seems to think that the Sweden Democrats are a racist party. I asked Truumax whether it should be considered “racism” if native Swedes resist being turned into a minority in their own country, which they will become within a few decades if current levels of immigration continue.[27]"

This quote is formulated as a question so you can not say that the author calls himself a racist or not. But it is obvious that he want native Swedes to resist "being turned into a minority in their own country, which they will become within a few decades if current levels of immigration continue." Then he asks if that view can be called "racist" or not.

Breivik was playing with words in a similar way yesterday at the preliminary court hearings when he admitted that he placed the bomb outside the Norwegian government house and he admitted that he shot all of those teenagers on the island, but he did not admit that he was guilty of a crime. He does not want to be called a criminal, because in his own view he is a hero. Similarly Fjordman might not want to be called a racist, but this quote does not say that he denies being a racist. Roger491127 (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite

There is no concensus that this article requires a fundamental rewrite, and in particular no consensus that citations to Fjordman's own writing cannot be used in characterizing it, that those he has influenced cannot be cited, or that references to other blogs cannot be used to support statements about his influence in the blogosphere. The requirement that the subject of the article be notable—requiring coverage in reliable sources—is distinct from what may be used in the article. I am accordingly going to revert the rewrite again and suggest putting any extra sources in the text. There are more than were being used, because it is advisable to avoid undue weight, on the Breivik connection or any other issue. More sources will probably continue to come to light for a while, including further English-language sources, and providing they are not turning the article into a coatrack, it will be great to have some of them added. But there is no reason to gut the article. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Therefore, the rewrite has correctly dealt with the main problem, i.e. that the article was (and now again is) primarily based on self-published sources. I therefore support the rewrite as a significant improvement with regard to the current version of the text.  Cs32en Talk to me  13:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

With respect, nonsense. The article deals with the reception of Fjordman's writings in and out of the blogosphere, followed by a section representing his views. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are just three examples that illustrate why your version of the article is in violation of WP:ABOUTSELF and other relevant policies and guidelines.

• "According to the site counter, by May 2007 the blog had more than a million hits." Unduly self-serving, in violation of WP:ABOUTSELF, #1. Also, not verifiable.

• "Fjordman was widely regarded by other blogs critical of Islam as an expert in his field." Unsourced, WP:SYNTHESIS derived from personal opinions in non-reliable sources (blogs).

• "Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch calls Fjordman the "great European essayist" and "the superb European writer"." No independent, reliable source reports on Spencer's views about Fjordman. Spencer is not a recognized experts on either blogs or islamophobic ideologies. The inclusion of Spencer's views is thus inadmissible.

In addition, there are a number of non-RS and self-published sources that are not authored by Fjordman, and that are thus not admissible regardless of weight and presentation.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, what is your problem? Why do you insist on using a rubbish blog-sourced, non-RS, poorly written version of the article, instead of helping rewrite it to a respectable standard? As far as I am concerned, it seems that you are trying to sabotage the article, by reverting it to a version that have no legitimacy whatsoever to exist. By your standards, we could have written Wikipedia articles on every fringe-to-notable blogger there is out in the blogosphere. – Bellatores (t.) 15:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Statements on the reception/widespread quoting of his writings in the blogosphere are naturally cited to other blogs. A statement about Robert Spencer's opinion of his work is naturally cited to Robert Spencer. What is problematic about using these sources when they are the subject of the points? I will add further cites from the Aftenposten article and possibly the VG and Dagbladet coverage as appropriate--after examining whether you have done any of that work already. But the statements are about blogs and about a writer you consider unreliable. The use of references to them is thus not just appropriate, but necessary for sourcing those statements. And since Fjordman is an influential blogger, that's the nature of his influence. You are either conflating the notability requirements regarding reliable sources with the requirements regarding sourcing of statements in the article, or betraying animus against bloggers in general. Fjordman's notability precedes the 2011 Norway attacks; it would be a BLP violation as well as vast over-emphasis to make the article focus on Breivik's mentions of his writings. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

First, we need to cite secondary sources when referring to the opinion of others, per WP:SECONDARY. Robert Spencer's book is not a valid source for his views here, as this is not an article about Robert Spencer. Second, there is the problem of authenticity with regard to blogs. It would be easy to destroy the public image of anyone who is not widely covered in reliable sources if we would allow blogs to be used the way that you appear to prefer. You have not shown, based on Wikipedia policies, that Fjordman's notability would precede the 2011 Norway attacks.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yngvadottir seem to fail to understand even the most basic of Wikipedia policies. You may think whatever you want in your own head, but don't try to argue that your personal opinions are by any means Wikipedia policy. At this point, your comments have no weight, considering that you simply ignore commonly accepted Wikipedia protocol. If you want to try (*laugh*) to change Wikipedia policies in your favor, so as to allow non-authorative blogs as sources, then you should take up the issue somewhere entirely else. – Bellatores (t.) 16:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy allows citation of self-published sources to substantiate assertions about the views of the writer; and of direct quotations as well as secondary sources. Again, you appear to be confusing criteria for establishing notability with criteria for what can be used in an article. However, as I hoped, you found some more newspaper articles. I am working them into the article, hoping not to thereby violate BLP policy by over-emphasizing the association between Fjordman and Breivik. Whether Fjordman is independently notable is the subject of the AfD. However, the article had adequate references to reliable sources to establish notability prior to 22 July. As I have said there, and those sources should not be effaced. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Bellatores has now reverted not one but two people's good faith efforts to rewrite the article, dismissing them as not the products of consensus and as not "clean." This is not consensus-based editing, but ownership. I have incorporated text and references from his/her versions of the article, and begun condensing the section on Fjordman's views, since that has had a template on it for a while indicating over-reliance on quotations and seems to be the focus of much of the criticism. I see no such collaborative effort on Bellatores' part, and disparagement of the notability of the topic. Wikipedia policy does not exclude use of primary sources to support assertions about writing and does not accept coatracking. Therefore, we differ on what the article should look like. Those who believe Fjordman to be non-notable should content themselves with making that point at the AfD - or else educate themselves by looking at the pre-July 22 state of the article (which was adequately sourced to demonstrate notability). If the topic is notable, excess focus on the Breivik connection is inappropriate - coatracking, recentism, and a BLP problem. I will accordingly continue trying to improve the article. I will examine the IP's edits for usable material and continue to do so with Bellatores' edits. That is collaborative editing. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Why can't you just add eventual content (RS) to my appropriately rewritten version of the article, instead of reverting back to a poorly written, messy and non-RS version of the article? Regarding the IP, it just added some obscure and irrelevant notes about the views of one Finnish MP. We try to maintain a certain degree of quality on the articles on Wikipedia. Please stop degrading it by poor writing, and violating policies including WP:SYNT and WP:RS. – Bellatores (t.) 16:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Why can't you stop denigrating other people's writing and work collaboratively? I am violating no policies. You have a much more limited view of what the article should contain, and what sources may be used, than the many editors who have previously written and reworked the article. It isn't a matter of policy violation, except when you misuse the term "consensus." I will continue to work on improving the article, evaluating what you and others bring to it, but I'm not bound by any policy to agree with you in all matters. And when it comes down to it, I consider the pre-July 22 version was better written than yours have been. Unnecessary and ill-founded jibes will get you nowhere. You've added some useful stuff, although it's massively overweighting the article toward the Breivik connection. I'm not insulting your work. Quit insulting others'. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

With respect to the latest edit summary by Bellatores: you have falsely claimed consensus from the start. Based on what you and one other person wants. This is not collaboration, it is ownership, particularly since at least one of you denies that Fjordman is independently notable - the definition of coatracking, rewriting an article to focus on relevance to something else. This has resulted in a rewrite that not only guts the article, it overbalances it towards BLP policy-violating implications of connection to Breivik. This is a touchy situation, granted, with a flood of newspaper articles focusing on Fjordman only as he relates to Breivik, several of them mentioning the discredited rumor that he is Breivik. But there is ample evidence on this talkpage of editors discussing that BLP issue - and reaching a consensus that BLP policy requires it be minimized. There is also my post to the BLP noticeboard on that issue. And OfftoRioRob's edit citing BLP/undue weight concerns. This makes the claims of consensus for the rewrite invalid, and they are in any case trumped by the BLP concern (as well as by the independent, prior notability of the topic. You may be legitimately confused about the differences in policy between permissible sources for establishing notability and for citations supporting points about a writer. You may have a distaste for bloggers. But the topic of this article is a blogger. Unless and until the AfD closes as delete—and this article has survived two previous AfDs, which demonstrates that the pre-22 July version contained adequate reliable sources to demonstrate notability, and notability does not expire—it should represent the topic, not just some subset of it. I continue to examine others' work on the article and incorporate what is useful. I will also tighten up the section on Fjordman's views, since there is substantial consensus that it is too long and quote-dependent. However, there is absolutely no justification for claiming consensus for the complete rewrite, or for describing the earlier version—the work of many editors, by the way, not "my" version— as "poor" or by any other sweepingly negative adjectives. Your claims do not make either of the two fact, and are anti-collaborative. They undermine respect for your evident good intentions. We have a better article now, and it will be better yet. But the gutted, limited-focus one is poorer, not better, regardless of the edit summaries of those claiming ownership here. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The old version of the article (which you support) is in clear violation of both WP:BLOGS and WP:ABOUTSELF. If your position is that the RS found are not sufficient for independent notability, that indirectly means that you support a delete of this article. I, on the contrary, have given my reason for considering the RS sufficient for a keep of this article. – Bellatores (t.) 17:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

On independent notability, I can only suggest you re-read what I wrote. It's you and the other editor who have dismissed the topic as not independently notable, and your unbalanced rewrite stems partly from that. That's a contradictory position but I've made extremely clear it's not mine. On the policies you cite, all 5 conditions at WP:ABOUTSELF are met; although the section on Fjordman's views does need condensing. And I intend to do that unless someone else does first. Blanking it, however, is not an improvement and not based on policy. It also produces an article undesirable under BLP policies, because it is substantially about the connection to Breivik. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understand that what the policies says, is that blogs can't be used for asserting notability. Only RS may assert notability. When notability has been asserted, then one may consider adding certain blogs as refs; but only for filling in and expanding the article somewhat; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources. – Bellatores (t.) 20:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. You are confusing the sources that are permissible for establishing notability with the sources that are permissible for explanatory purposes in the article. And only the section on his views has been plausibly said to be overly dependent on such sources. That is not teh entire article, and the article needs a section on his views (unless one adopts the circular reasoning that leads to the article being substantially about not Fjordman's writings, but Breivik's use of Fjordman's writings, because that's the main topic of recent coverage in reliable sources. However, Fjordman's writings were notable before July 22; that notability was supported by reliable sources used in that version of the article; and therefore this article should not be turned into a coatrack. It shouldn't anyway. It's a violation of BLP policy. This is not a matter of "personal interpretation," it's a matter of his writings having been previously established as notable. Therefore - there needs to be something in the article about his being frequently cited inside and outside the blogosphere, and Anders Behring Breivik is merely teh latest and most spectacular example of that previously established influence. Therefore also, there needs to be a section on his views, and that section needs citations to his writings. Where there is consensus and has been for some time - the article had a longstanding template that no one removed - is that the section on his political views needs shortening and recasting to make it less dominated by quotes. That does not amount in any way shape or form to the whole article's being overly dependent on self-published sources, or support in any way, shape, or form a removal of all sources from the article that would not be acceptable to establish notability. And your removing tehm at teh outset produced a seriously unbalanced article, and stuffing it with more and more references to Breivik makes it worse, not better. However, I have said and am here saying again that I welcome your hard work in digging out sources, I have been and will be working some of them in, and I intend to rewrite that political views section to be shorter and less quote-dependent. Unless someone else does it first. Is it clearer now why the version your are clinging to is misguided in my view and not better than an improved version of the pre-July 22 version? Apart of course from the fact that the last 2 reverts have also removed an interwiki link and a topics template, which were added in good faith and usefully by 2 other editors, and that OfftoRioRob's policy-based edit was summarily dismissed as based only on personal opinion when it reflects consensus here on this talkpage and best practice with regards to BLP and undue weight? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The thing I don't understand, is why you insist on using those blogs, when the available RS now address everything you call for. They address his guesting on several blogs, they address his own writings, they address his own views, they address other's considerations about him, and, importantly, they address his notability. I don't see why it is necessary to go to the step of using blogs as sources, when we now have RS that address pretty much the same, at least the most vital, information. – Bellatores (t.) 22:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Because the article is about Fjordman's writings and should be a balanced presentation of that topic, not slanted toward the connection with Breivik. It needs a section on his views and should quote what he has actually written (and not just his statements distancing himself from Breivik, either). By throwing out all material of that kind, your rewrite started off badly unbalanced and lacking a necessary dimension; and the unnecessary reliance on newspapers to the exclusion of other self-published statements also removed useful material and references about his earlier notability. The imbalance in the older version of the article is that the section on his views is too quote-dependent (and over-long, for that and possibly other reasons). That was all that was wrong with it, although like any article it could and can stand improvement, including judicious use of new sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

But the article has paragraphs that quotes and describes his views, unless of course you mean big copy-paste paragraphs similar to those in the old version. I can only tell you that such quotes are seldomly appropriate for encyclopedic articles. Very few articles includes lenghty block-quotes, and when used, they usually have a significant notability in itself; otherwise, who is it to decide which parts, and of what of the dozens of articles, are to be chosen for inclusion? At best, it will result in cherrypicking. – Bellatores (t.) 12:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I note that the latest simple revert again asserts breach of Wikipedia rules. I believe I have sufficiently demonstrated above why this is incorrect, and why there are BLP reasons not to stop and debate it, but to continue to incorporate your good work into a version that is not substantially about the connection with Breivik's writings. --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I must say I don't share your concern over the alleged overemphasis on the "Breivik connection". True, most of the RS do discuss Fjordman in that context, but our article here on WP only has one paragraph on it, which is appropriate. Everything else is completely unrelated to that case. I don't think BLP concerns matter much in this context, because the nature of the RS is very clear in asserting Fjordman's notability. – Bellatores (t.) 15:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I know you don't; as I say, I believe you are confusing the kinds of sources required to establish notability of a subject with the kinds of sources permissible in writing an article about it; and thus seriously overemphasizing the recent Breivik connection because there are masses of news articles arising out of it. Your rewrite started from that premise and has a whole subsection on Breivik (as well as an unnecessary section on his identity—at least you leave out the discredited rumor). It's unbalanced because of its restricted sources and/or because you are thinking the subject is only notable in the wake of the 2011 Norway attacks. And this is a BLP concern because it treats Fjordman as an adjunct to Breivik/Breivik's actions. His views were widely cited for years before this past July 22. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The subject of this article actually is only notable in the wake of the 2011 Norway attacks.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you're very wrong, as I have said at AfD. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

I have brought the issues that are being discussed here to the attention of the Biographies of living persons (BLP) noticeboard. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Fjordman (2).  Cs32en Talk to me  14:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Jussi Halla-aho

I added an intresting slant on his relationship with the Finnish MP Jussi Halla-aho.213.81.116.126 (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The source you added says that Fjordman cited Hallo-aho, and thus isn't useful in this article. It could, however, be a problem with the translation? Yngvadottir (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Fjordman and document.no

The article claims that "He also wrote for the Norwegian site Document.no until 2009". However, the reference doesn't contain that information. To my knowledge, Fjordman only commented on articles written by document.no, just like hundreds of other people have. If so, he didn't write 'for' document.no any more than people who provide short opinion remarks in newspapers write 'for' the newspapers. Unless evidence can be given that Fjordman actually wrote _for_ document.no, I suggest a rewording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.80.144 (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; we'll check the sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Following up here: in the reference, the moderator(s) of the site do(es) say that he was permitted to write for the site. But it doesn't say 2009. I'll look further regarding the date. --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Bellatores has removed it, so I removed it in the version I'm reworking, also. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Identification

Wikipedia can not know if ‘fjordman’ is a real person, identity oder hundreds oder two .... We can only know, that there are informations signed with ‘fjordman’. Zabia2 (talk) 11:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point, but I've only noted one reliable source saying that he may be more than one person, and multiple reliable sources do refer to him as one person. Can you cite a few reliable sources that raise the issue? --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if this is the one reliable source you're talking about, but it mentions it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2011/jul/24/norway-anders-behring-breivik-beliefs : "Fjordman, who may be several people writing under a pseudonym, is at least one Norwegian Islamophobe who has for years been predicting civil war between Muslims and their neighbours." 126.59.94.137 (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC) (not the same person as Zabia2)

Yes, that was the one I had seen.Yngvadottir (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"Fjordman" has been identified by Norwegian police, according to several news sources in Norway. The police has confirmed they are going to question him. Imo there is quite a chance that Norwegian media will get hold of this information, and publish his identity. Charlie 06:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The source you added doesn't say that; concluding from their stated intent that they have identified him is speculation. Unless you have sources that actually say the police know his identity, adding this is premature. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed by the police today. Added reference. Charlie 14:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yngvadottir: Please refrain from repeatedly reverting edits you find unpleasant/incriminating(?) I much prefer we discuss matters on the talk page first. Mr Jensen/Fjordman has, justly or unjustly, become what the police call a "key figure" in their investigation, and I think holding this information back is blatantly biased. Charlie 08:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

New section made below. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Fjordman came out in the Norwegian daily VG today. I have written two referenced sentences in the article to this fact, but I guess it opens a lot of other questions, for instance: Should the article be re-titled to Peder Nøstevold Jensen? --benjamil (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Re-title and redirect "Fjordman" to the new article. Mr Jensen is now a public person, and an important figure in understanding the background for the 2011 Norway attacks. See also the discussion about the deletion requests for the Fjordman article (now closed). Charlie 08:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait for now. If the Fjordman blog is the only thing that Jensen is notable for, then the article's title would probably be kept, per WP:BLP1E.  Cs32en Talk to me  09:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Heard by Norwegian police [on August 4]

Swedish article from Helsingborgs Dagblad: http://hd.se/utrikes/2011/08/02/bloggare-forhors-i-terrorutredning/ You could probably find something in Norwegian and maybe English as well. I think it would be worth mentioning, but I don't know where/how.126.59.94.137 (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. However, is only says he will be interrogated by Norwegian police, no details given. I took the liberty of editing the heading accordingly.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Interrogated, Verdens Gang reports, by Norwegian police yesterday. Edited the heading again.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Jarle Brenna: "«Fjordman» avhørt av politiet." ("Fjordman interrogated by the police.") Verdens Gang, August 5, 2011.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

BLP concerns

Reproducng here the following message from Charlie, which he posted above and also to my talk:

Please refrain from repeatedly removing quotes and information you simply do not like. I much prefer we discuss matters on the talk pages first. Charlie 08:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

and my response there was:

That's not what I'm doing. If you had looked, you would have seen that the info about his being called an extremist was already included, with that ref, in a better place. Also there are BLP concerns: Collect removed the entire paragraph, short though it was. I've been trying to get her to engage on the talk page so that other editors can see the range of viewpoints among editors. I am sorry that my editing of your contribution to remove repetition and tidy up citation struck you as biased removal. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: WP:BLP is very clear. Collect (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've read it multiple times and still do not see how it can be used to justify totally removing information which is not contentious—the fact that Breivik extensively cited his writings, and now the fact that he has been questioned by the police and the fact that he has revealed his name to the press—and is adequately referenced. Negative information with poor sourcing, such as any implication that he endorsed Breivik's action that might arise from reporting speculation (the rapidly discredited rumor that Breivik is Fjordman being a good example, and I also include under this heading undue weight on how much Breivik admired his writings (others did too) or on what the police may seek to learn from questioning him, or the loaded word "interrogate") should not be included without extremely good sources, which is why I have sought to minimize the paragraph on Breivik, not offset it as a special use of his works by, for example, making a subheading, and state only facts that are reported by multiple reliable sources and are not disputed (contentious). Please tell me where I am misinterpreting policy in the above. The policy most definitely does not say "Never say anything that could be construed as negative." What I have been trying to do is keep the article factual, NPOV, and respectful of BLP concerns while compromising with sources and wording that other editors have used. And avoiding having the article become a series of "X said" . . . "Y said". Yngvadottir (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. My remark was in reference to the police investigation of the 2011 attacks, not the accusations of extremism/dystopianism. I should perhaps have stated that more clearly. Charlie 13:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I see. See above response to Collect for some of my concerns. I have tried very hard to produce compromises that move editing forward, rather than simply reverting. There has rarely been a consensus about this article. I do disagree with you about the wording of the sentence about the police inquiry, but I see above that events have unfolded in a manner that changes the legal implications. I still regard it as extremely important not to suggest by emphasis or wording that Fjordman is guilty by association—a specific issue that Collect has raised. (I also think that for both accuracy and clarity's sake we need to give the authors and titles of all cited articles, and indicate their language, no matter how rapidly things happen. Several of us here can evidently read Norwegian and German as well as English, and some of us can also read Swedish, but people consulting the article shouldn't have to click on a reference link to discover they can't read it). Yngvadottir (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a continuing issue with undue weight here. I agree, the information that Breivik cited Fjordman extensively needs to be in the article (and his statement in response). I agree, the fact the police questioned him as a "witness" (not sure exactly how to put that, not being a lawyer) needs to be in the article. I agree, now that we have RS for his having revealed his identity, that needs to be in the article. But all of these things should be minimized for BLP reasons. They should be brief and in the context of an article about Fjordman and what makes him notable - his writings and the fact they have been frequently cited and republished. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify Mr Jensen's current status in the investigation: initially he was just a witness. According to himself, the police decided to confiscate a possession of his shortly after he was questioned (a PC). This is a legal step which automatically gives him status as charged according to the Norwegian criminal case procedure act (section 82). No formal, written charge has been presented yet. Charlie 14:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Fjordman cited on wikipedia!

Go to Blogging in Iran (current version), look up the "academic papers" section and sure enough, "A Case Study of Iranian English Language Weblogs, inside and outside of the Islamic Republic of Iran." by none other than Fjordman shows up, writing under his real identity this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.92.195 (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It is now removed as an "extremist source". But the paper was accepted by the university as a masters paper. So it must not have been with extremist content. If something is written by an "extremist" it does not follow that the content necessarily is extremist of nature. BTW extremist is a subjective label. Many academics have views which could be viewed as extremist (e.g. Marxism) but their papers are acceptable as a source. S_peakF_ree ^(talk) 12:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Far-right islamophobic...

Sorry, there is no need for the label "far-right" in the heading. He is labeled as far-right because he is anti-islamic, and labeled as islamophobic because he is anti-islamic. I will let the label "islamophobic" slide for the moment. But: there is no additional information in the label "far-right" after you have labeled him islamophobic. We are not talking about a man who wants to outlaw abortion, or remove all taxes, or cancel all social security. We are not talking about a man who is first far-right, and then "islamophobic". We are talking about a man who is "islamophobic". And because of this, the political spinners label him as far-right. But there is no information in the label, it is only an attempt to make a label stick. This means, there is no need to have both the labels "far-right", and "islamophobic", in the lead. The label you want, is then "islamophobic". The far-right must go. Greswik (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources describe him as far-right and as Islamophobic, so we need to use both descriptions. I'm not sure Islamophobic is always far-right, surely you find Islamophobia light. JonFlaune (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

He is reported as having posted on sites run by "far right extremists" but labelling him one is beyond what WP:BLP allows as a statement of fact. [3] makes clear his Labour background, and that his sole issue appears to be one of opposing Muslim immigration as far as politics goes. Collect (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposing the removal of all muslims from western countries and if so needed with military intervention, is far beyond that - Fjordman proposed "nazi-solution" Keanu (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me reiterate: Reliable sources such as The Independent and Verdens Gang describe him as a "far-right blogger"[4] and "den høyreekstreme bloggeren" [the far right extremist blogger][5]. What he voted in the past is irrelevant, he is described as far right now. He is not a member of the Labour Party and has never been. If you want to deport the whole Muslim population of Europe, you are both far right, extremist, and racist. JonFlaune (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Indepedent is RS for the claim According to VG, Mr Jensen grew up in a family that supported the Norwegian Socialist Left Party and he voted Labour before deciding to support the country's anti-immigrant Progress Party. So much for that. As for categorizing people as "extreme", see multiple WP:BLP/N discussions over the past year or more. It is not our job to do anything other than what RS sources in general say, and we must abide by WP:BLP which says we should write such articles "conservatively". Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see the issue adressed by those who wants the "far-right" to be mentioned. The issue is, the man is a single-issue debater - he is against Islam. This is covered in the "islamophobic". My point is, if he is labelled as far-right because he is "islamophobic", there is no information in the label "far-right" not already covered in "Islamophobic". According to Norwegian papers, and the sources seems to converge on them, he turned any discussion into a discussion about Islam. As an example, [6] (in Norwegian).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greswik (talk • contribs)

You can be an islamophobe without being far-right. Promoting violence and being intensely anti-left (anti cultural-marxism for example) such as the subject in this matter means you are far off the middle in some direction. If not left and not right, then where? South-eastern, north-western? Is the measure linear, triangular or some other geometry? I though right and left were the only alternatives. Keanu (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

So in what way, if you subtract his "islamophobia", is he "far-right"? Greswik (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

As per the definition of wikipedia: supremacism, a rejection of social equality, segregation, a degree of racism, and reactionarism. Btw your assertion that he is a single-issue debater is not accurate (to say the least), unless that is, you consider e.g. feminism^ref and space travel^ref as sole products of Islam. Keanu (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me reiterate again: He is described as Islamophobic and far-right because reliable sources describe him as Islamophobic and far-right. Islamophobic and far-right are not the same, you can be far-right without being Islamophobic, and you can be (mildly to moderately) Islamophobic without being far-right. A person who wants a Hitler solution for Europe's muslims is certainly far right. Describing him as a far-right Islamophobe is a conservative and scholarly description supported by numerous sources. JonFlaune (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The "far right" label is indeed quite nonsensical description. Even calling him "right-wing" is disputable. Because most of his views seem simply to be European centrist views neither left nor right. Perhaps the sources describing him that way aren't that reliable after all --41.151.200.220 (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC) ?

There are many Neo-Nazis who are pro-Islam, I think that the Rightwing-Extremists in Europe and the USA are dont interst for the faith of arab, iranian, somali or pakistani emigrants they hate them because they are "strangers".--95.114.86.242 (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Fjordman's father is a full-blooded Ashkenazi Khazar Jew, so that makes him half-Khazar

A recent addition to the article was immediately removed for no ground. It added "Jewish" in front of all the other labels associated to Fjordman. It is this label which is the most important for it greatly clarifies his psychopathic hatred of Muslims which lead to to Anders Behring Breivik carrying out the Oslo Bombing. Here is the reference source:

http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/blog/joeblow/fjordman-jew-or-least-definitely-ashkenazi-khazar-descent

This is how the article should begin:

Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen (born 11 June 1975) is a Jewish[1] Norwegian[2] far-right[3][4] extremist[5] Islamophobic[6] blogger who uses the pseudonym Fjordman.[7][8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.162.123.24 (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong, he is not jewish. Keanu (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

To begin with, WP does not regard blogs as reliable sources.

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This is just rubbish. He is not a jew, even though some antisemittic bloggers claim so.88.89.216.61 (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Fjordman dont hate muslims he hate only Islam, the most critics of Fjordman only defend Islam and defame criticsm of Islam, but they arent interst in muslims, maybe the muslims self are the biggest victims of islam.--95.114.86.242 (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Islamophobic or Anti-Islamic

On description being changed from Islamophobic to Anti-Islamic:

When the link itself is to Islamophobia, there is no reason not to describe him as Islamophobic (instead of Anti-Islamic):

1. The sources consistently describe him as Islamophobic (or similar terms)
2. Islamophobia is the established term for "prejudice against, hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims", the term under which Wikipedia's article on this phenomenon is found: Islamophobia (it has nothing to do with a "diagnosis" as falsely claimed by one editor -- this isn't even mentioned in the article on Islamophobia -- this is an argument mostly used by the far-right fringe in an attempt to discredit the established term which they don't like. Islamophobia is the term used, inter alia, by the UN and the EU to describe hatred or prejudice against Muslims, and the term widely adopted by the scholarly community)

I feel "Anti-Islamic" is a term mostly used by the far-right fringe in order to avoid the established term which is Islamophobia. When you search for "anti-islamic", the first result after Wikipedia is a far-right hate website. I think we should use the established term, not a fringe term used by the far-right. There is no question he is Islamophobic, this is supported by several of the sources cited both in the lead and in the body of the article, including high quality sources such as an interview with a researcher at the Norwegian Center for Studies of Holocaust and Religious Minorities. He wants to forcefully "remove" the whole Muslim population of Europe using what Dagbladet calls a "Nazi solution"[7] -- if he isn't Islamophobic (and far-right), then who is? JonFlaune (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia is not an arm of the UN or the EU, and isn't obliged to use the same neologisms. I think it more relevant for Wikipedia that 'Islamophobia' still doesn't appear in most dictionaries, and indeed Wikipedia itself rejects it as a word, as you must have noticed while typing your edits. Since you seem to be an authority on the subject, could you explain how Islamophobia is to be differentiated from the informed criticism of Islam in which Fjordman engaged? The template on said criticism contained pretty innocuous articles on non-Muslim objections to the morality of Muhammad, Shariah law, the authenticity of the Quran and so forth, yet you attempted to rename it a 'series on Islamophobia'. If, then, you think Islamophobia is synonymous with criticism of Islam, can you explain why criticism of other belief systems is not similarly pathologized? Please justify the inconsistency if you expect others to accept it.

As for Fjordman, can you explain how, supposedly afflicted by a phobia of Islam, Jensen managed to study Arabic in Cairo for years? Isn’t this a bit like an aerophobe training to become a pilot, or an acrophobe taking up rock-climbing?

If you find the analogy absurd, it's because "Islamophobia" is absurd. Logos384 (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not reject Islamophobia as a word. The concept is even acknowledged with an article, which states: "Islamophobia is prejudice against, hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims". Keanu (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The spelling system doesn't seem to accept it. Anyway, all I'm saying is that, as a word, it seems absurd and Orwellian, given the inconsistencies in its use and purported meaning. This isn't the place for a semantic debate, but just consider: a 'phobia' is a precisely defined term in psychology, which obviously doesn't apply to Islamophobia. So if it's going to take on another meaning, then that meaning should be consistently applied to other, equivalent concepts - such as 'hatred or fear' of communism, Buddhism and so on - or else the double standard should be explained, i.e. why Richard Dawkins is not a 'Christianophobe' vis-á-vis his ignorant and vicious attacks on Christianity. The very word is partisan, skewed in Islam's favor, so Wikipedia might be better off treating it with a little more skepticism. Logos384 (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to campaign against an established term which already has its own article! All you are saying here is really only your opinion/original research and hence not relevant to this article. JonFlaune (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

What I'm saying here is discussion of the terminology of the article, which is entirely relevant in a site aspiring to objectivity. Clearly you're not interested in any other perspective on the matter, but I think I've demonstrated that "Islamophobia" is a POV term. Note that the Wiki article itself has a lengthy section on criticism of the concept, and there are plenty of other contested terms with their own articles; this doesn't give them legitimacy. It would be as if Wikipedia were to brand global warming skeptics as 'climate change deniers' - obviously loaded language through evoking the holocaust in the same way "Islamophobia" evokes a mental disorder. It really isn't that hard to grasp. Logos384 (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No, nothing of what you are saying here is relevant to this article. The article is based on sources and established terminology, not editors' private opinions on the terminology (which is original research). Also, climate change denial is a recognized phenomenon that is different from "scepticism." JonFlaune (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say there was no such thing as denial of climate change. But the articles on individual climate change skeptics do not describe them, in the lead sentence, as 'climate change deniers' since it's obviously a loaded term inappropriate to Wikipedia. This is different from climate change denial as a phenomenon, which rightly has its own article. The word "Islamophobia" has an article because it is a phenomenon, but that doesn't make it rational or worth adopting. Anyway, I've said all I can about it, feel free to spray it around if you must. Logos384 (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

JonFlaune, where did you get the idea that the term "anti-Islam" is "mostly used by the far-right fringe" and that "Islamophobia" is the established term? The following results from the BBC and The Guardian show that it's used by respectable, even left-wing organisations. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you need to read up on the strawman concept. Did I say "anti-Islam" (sic!) is "mostly used by the far-right fringe"? No, I never said such a thing. However, thanks for providing these links, which demonstrate that:

• The Guardian has almost ten times as many results (over 20,000) for Islamophobia as they have for the term I object to, "Anti-Islamic" (they have 3,760 results for "Anti-Islam")
• The BBC has the same pattern, Islamophobia is the widely used term.

Did I say the term Anti-Islamic is exclusively used by the far-right? No, I said it was my feeling that it was the preferred term used by the far right. The links you provided demonstrate that mainstream sources such as the Guardian and the BBC prefer the established term, Islamophobia. He ought to be described as Islamophobic (the most common term in mainstream sources), not Anti-Islamic (the least common term). JonFlaune (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC) 

You said "I feel "Anti-Islamic" is a term mostly used by the far-right fringe in order to avoid the established term which is Islamophobia", and "I think we should use the established term, not a fringe term used by the far-right." But maybe you weren't clear on what you meant. In any case, WP:LABEL says we should avoid contentious terms, and attribute them in the text if they're widely used. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

To decide on a proper ( set of ) terms to describe Fjordman you have to dig into the complex writings or analysis of his writings. Weather BBC or other sources use some terms or not is relevant at all. Fjordman is an anti-muslim, a fascist, anti-feminist and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.216.61 (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Alma Mater

Alma mater means university from which one has graduated. It is not about whether the person is a scholar or not. Jensen graduated from these universities (it is sourced). The master thesis is real. It is published on the website of the University of Oslo. You can read it. Regards -- RJFF (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The notion of "Alma mater" ("nourishing mother") would imply that Fjordman's thinking somehow would have been "nourished" by these universities. This section of the infobox is not appropriate in this case, and the information should be move to the article's body.  Cs32en Talk to me  08:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You should not take the expression "alma mater" too literally. It just means the university from which he has graduated. Any politician etc. has an "alma mater" field in their infobox, just stating where they studied. We cannot know whether or not his studies have intellectually nourished him. Usually university studies do nourish one's intellect, right? Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 09:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Did he live at a centre for the mentally retarded?

The article states that he "lived and worked at a daycenter for the mentally retarded". Did he actually live there, or just work there? JonFlaune (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The source says "living and working". Does "Dagsenter" always imply "day center for the mentally retarded"? -- RJFF (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"Dagsenter" can mean any kind of day center - including ones for seniors, children etc. Collect (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

According to Dagbladet (written edition, Saturday August 6th I believe), mr. Jensen lived and worked at Stiftelsen Radarveien Dagsenter, which is a day center for the mentally retarded. Keanu (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No source allowing us to infer that he was "mentally retarded" is found - is there any sound reason why that is of importance in the BLP? The only only online source given by the way did not make that connection. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Found the article, it was VG, August 6th, page 10. The article can be bought here. The article has an interview and picture of his neighbour, and interview with his boss at the daycenter along with a picture of the daycenter. Got it mixed up and assumed it was the type of daycenter that need employees on watch day and night, and where employees may also live temporarily. Not so in this case, he just worked there. But the center is for mentally retarded people. Keanu (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry again. Now I'm starting to believe in conspiracy theories! The other reference clearly states that he also lived there. Keanu (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

And why should we identify him with "mentally retarded" people? Collect (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not, do you have anything against such people? As far as I know mr. Jenson did a great job for society, working at this center to help people less fortunate than himself. Why should the article not mention that? Keanu (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The clear attempted inference from "he lived and worked at a center for the mentally retarded" is that he has a mental defect. As there is no reason for such an infe.wrence, and as the online article cited does not make the claim, we are entirely depended on your assurance that a newspaper article makes that precise claim. It is SYNTH if they only name the centre and you add another source as to what the centre is, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so I erroneously added a reference to Dagbladet, then corrected to VG, but user:Off2riorob just reverted to Dagbladet with notice: "Please join the discussion". What seems to be the problem? Keanu (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We usually include the occupation of people in BLPs, though not always the workplace. The wording "lived and worked at a center for the mentally retarded" is somewhat ambiguous, as patients at such centers are sometimes also given work. Thus, we should add a job description such as "personal care assistant" (based on sources) to clarify the meaning.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

He did not live at the daycenter. The fact that he worked at a daycenter is an interesting fact, because he had academic background but didnt manage to get academic work, or a normal Norwegian income. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.216.61 (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

For some giggles

Hey, why don't we add "influenced: Anders Behring Brevik"? Just think about it; why the hell not? 66.233.55.145 (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a fact, and an interesting question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.216.61 (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

An intersting fact too is why the brother of the "moderate muslim" Tariq Ramadan, Said Ramadan defend stoning?--95.114.86.242 (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

He isnt an ethnocentric

He is aganist Islam, so what? Many people who are pro-democracy like Ayaan Hirsi Ali are also against Islam.--95.114.86.242 (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Detainee; mugshot

Are there any references that say Fjordman was detained by police after the 2011-7-22 ? (I know that he has been interviewed as a witness by police — and had his computer temporarily confiscated.)

After 2011-7-22, are there any references that say that mug shots of him, have been taken by police?--85.165.229.8 (talk) 12:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian mugshots generally aren't available to the public. __meco (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

April 21 2012 edits

Some recent edits should be dicussed before further actions are made. I have, in effect reverted two edits made by the user Jason from nyc.

One of the edits removes Fjordman's description of Oslo's immigrant population, on the grounds that it is "out of context". I disagree. It documents a strongly negative description of several ethnic groups from Nøstvold Jensen, which is deeply problematic regardless of context. If this edit is going to pass, please explain why this quote is less interesting because of the specific context and why a sourced quote, in your opinion, should be removed rather than rephrased, if the deletion was really motivated by an interpretation of WP:NPOV.

Yes, this change needs to be discussed and the one-line edit statement wasn’t enough. The statement in question was made by Fjordman in the comments section of a blog on the day of the Breivik attack. At that point it was thought that the attack was committed by Muslim terrorists as had initially been reported. Clearly at such a traumatic moment anger and disgust doesn’t make for clear extemporaneous statements of one’s general disposition. To take an emotional off-the-cuff statement out of context of the writer's long and extensive expositions is undue weight. WP:UNDUE Was there a pattern of racial comments in his work and if so let's get a good reference.

The second point is that the reference is to a blog. It’s an institutional blog and not a personal blog but blogs are not preferred sources for Wikipedia. By the way, the disclaimer suggests that it is tantamount to a personal blog. I question the source. This is my case with regard to the removed material. What do other editors think? Jason from nyc (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I acknowledge that this isn't straightforward. Nøstvold Jensen is a prolific writer. However, the 2011 attacks are the source of his mainstream fame. His post is cached | here, so it's highly likely that the quote is the real thing. Is it undue? Well, everyone was emotional and until the truth became clear, there was a lot of speculation. But did make the demonization of the entire immigrant population an acceptable thing? Richard Nixon had a long political career. Does that mean that mentioning his lie, "I am not a crook", is undue? The comparison may be lacking, but my case would be: Sometimes what people say when they are under emotional stress is the most revealing.

--benjamil (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concern but in a quick sentence with the syntax “they” commit crimes can mean “all of them” commit crimes or “too many of them” commit crimes. Often qualifiers are dropped. It’s too much from an off-the-cuff comment. I also question the source--a personal blog. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The source I provided was a web cache. However, I see your point. I'll retract my opposition to the delete, and try to see if I can find some more solid source for the racism allegations. --benjamil (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The other concerns a quote made by Breivik during the trial. In the source, it is the voice of Breivik that states that Fjordman was randomly chosen as a contributor to the "manifesto". This means that for the purposes of documenting Breivik's views, the article is actually a primary source and not a secondary one. This case also clearly demonstrates why that distinction is important, as it is reasonable to suspect that Breivik has clear incentives to "rescue" his favorite ideologue from association with himself, although he is by far the most important (although unwillingly) contributor to the "manifesto". Even if it were considered ok to present Breivik's view as stated by himself, it is not clear why this should mean that Fjordman's quotes about Breivik in the text's earlier versions should be removed.

I didn't remove Fjordman's quotes about Breivik in the previous text. Look at the "diffs" closely and you'll see the text was moved down after the inserted material. I'm not clear on the use of Breivik's quote in regards to the Fjordman article. Clearly Breivik's words are primary for the Breivik article. You may be right that this is still primary for the Fjordman article. It was published in a major Norwegian newspaper and it wasn't Fjordman talking about Fjordman which would clearly be self-serving. I thought is was rather straight forward that Breivik was a violent revolutionary and Fjordman never has been. It didn't seem controversial. With regard to Fjordman I thought it was secondary material since Fjordman wasn't the source. Perhaps, I'm not correct on this. What do others think? Jason from nyc (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding where I claimed something was removed. Sloppy reading on my part.

I can see why this is not clear cut when it comes to source policies. The statement is relayed by an ok source. But it is itself just relaying Breivik's words. That means that we can be reasonably sure that Breivik has actually said this, but whether or not we should trust his words is another matter. I've read the "manifesto". The whole mess. The prominence of Fjordman in the "theoretical"/background part of it is so obvious that I have a very hard time taking Breivik's words at face value, and there is text in place that makes this point. Some quite knowledgeable people referenced other places in the article have also questioned Nøstvold Jensen's alleged pro-democratic, non-violent stance. To be blunt: Almost anyone will appear to be a saint when Breivik compares them to himself, and I'm not sure we should allow him a voice to do that in this article, and I would strongly prefer if the voice were transferred to a more neutral commentator who would judge Breivik's allegations. As long as no such commentary doesn't exist, my vote is to leave the quote out. If we can't agree on that, I would claim that this is one of those cases where WP:ALLEGED calls for the text to distance itself from the quote.

--benjamil (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand the “Compendium” is primary and not a valid source. I have read about 80% of it and all of his own words. I admit a perverse interest in radicals going back to the 1960s when I met several (including violent) radicals in the anti-war movement. Crossing the line from rhetoric to violence is bone-chilling. And of course I’m sensitive to the victims and their families.

You are correct that one can’t take his words at face value. However, when writers filter his words and select what they consider significant that makes their articles valid secondary sources with their editorial decisions as implying importance. That being said, I believe I was mistaken when I quoted what I thought was a newspaper article but is nothing more than a newspaper reproduction on the trial proceedings (correctly me if I’m wrong). In that case, I think his words are part of a reproduced primary source and not a filtered analysis. I agree then that the original insertion should be removed (as you did). Jason from nyc (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That is correct. It seems we agree on the end result. Thanks for the discussion. --benjamil (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss before making any further edits regarding these specific issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamil (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

POV in introduction section

The introduction section, in two sentences situated in the middle, used to:

a) claim that Fjordman believes that Muslims are "secretly planning to take over Europe"

b) claim that Fjordman believes in a "conspiracy theory" named "Eurabia".

The words used introduce Fjordman's beliefs under a conspirational angle which is nowhere to be found in his own writings, and come therefore from the subjective account of a) The Independent, a relatively small British newspaper of liberal leanings and b) a Wikipedia editor. There is clearly a problem of neutrality here, as well as of representation of the real mainstream current.

Fjordman does not believe in the existence of a secret Muslim plot to seize power, but rather believe that they will seize power naturally and overtly, without the need of a secret plot, through demographic tendencies alone.

As to Eurabia, very few mainstream sources describe this theory as a "conspiracy theory", but rather as a "false theory" based on false assumptions and numbers. This is not the same thing, words have a meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.173.5 (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above statements on the neutrality of the current article. I found it hard to rationally understand how this Wiki entry even falls under the Wikipedia guidelines for being fair and balanced. As stated above, the contributor has heavily misrepresented the subject within the introduction summary, Fjordman/Jensen, and leans heavily on logical fallacies (attacking the subject, not his actions) to represent the subject. In truth, this article appears to be slanted towards a pro-radical Islamic stance. Editors please read and review. Also, I'd forward the position the article needs to be re-written without bias or fully deleted. Appscholar (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Two WP:SPAs. Stale and I've removed the template but also removed the conspiracy theory bit (although we might be able to replace it if we find more sources) and added another source for "secretly planning to take over Europe", as well as a quote calling for the removal of Muslims which I added in response to a translation request. Dougweller (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is the HonestThinking.org chap's opinion noteworthy?

Ole Jørgen Anfindsen's website reads like a fairly regular (that is to say of course, highly noxious) white nationalist page. Or is it because he was interviewed by Aftenposten, and Wikipedia is simply citing the newspaper? Could someone explain, I'm new here. --Tshloab (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

it's totally undue. i'll remove it.-- altetendekrabbe  20:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Dagsavisen exchange of views

Just curious, but this opinion piece is so hateful and the comparison out of touch with reality, that is makes me wonder why we should dignify it with mentioning it. Beyond high-brow name-calling, the tidbit is also devoid of actual information on Fjordman. On the other hand, removing it from the article also means removing Fjordman's defense against these demonizing allegations. So what do you think, keeping or removing it? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Including his response was my rationale for rewriting rather than removing it, but I don't have strong feelings that it should be reinstated. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fjordman. 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/20080501073853/http://wo.uio.no:80/as/WebObjects/theses.woa/wa/these?WORKID=21737 to http://wo.uio.no/as/WebObjects/theses.woa/wa/these?WORKID=21737

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) 10:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fjordman. 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/20110430042505/http://blog.nibrinternational.no/ to http://blog.nibrinternational.no/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://wo.uio.no/as/WebObjects/theses.woa/wa/these?WORKID=21737

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) 22:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)