Talk:Christian Tybring-Gjedde

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Christian Tybring-Gjedde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100305210701/http://www.dagsavisen.no/innenriks/article472477.ece to http://www.dagsavisen.no/innenriks/article472477.ece
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100830132217/http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article3785439.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article3785439.ece
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130222202748/http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/innenriks/politikk/valg2005/article409937.ece to http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/innenriks/politikk/valg2005/article409937.ece

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Bio of Living Person (BLP)
Substantial portions of this wiki page violate the BLP standards concerning neutrality, slander, and unsourced. Seek consensus before major polemic claims. Also, avoid excessive repetition.--2601:681:4A00:4FE0:14F8:E172:1C68:7C7A (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Spurious claims of "BPL" is not carte blanche to blank large parts (almost the entire lead section) of a solidly sourced article that you don't like, in this case e.g. The New York Times', The Guardian's and scholars' description of him as far-right. A Wikipedia article by definition includes "repetition" (learn more here: WP:LEAD). --Egulbrandsen (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

It will be helpful to remain calm, Egulbrandsen. BLP is not just about adequate sourcing. Please read this, the rules of which were violated on multiple occasions.

From the BLP wiki page: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material."

The onus is on the editor who adds or restores the material, in this case, you. Seek consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:14F8:E172:1C68:7C7A (talk) 04:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You have been cautioned (by other editors than me) against your blanking and disruption, and nobody has agreed with your ridiculous claims of non-existent "BLP" (or "BPL" as you called it) problems. This is an encylopedic article, based on high-quality mainstream sources. Nothing in the article is unsourced, or undue, or anything. That the far-right fringe agrees with the article is not a requirement. --Egulbrandsen (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The other editor was mistaken: sourcing is not all that BLP covers. Lower the emotion. This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

You added your edits the last 2 days, yet the sources you cited were from events occurring years ago. You seem motivated to fill his wiki page with negative information because of his recent feature in the news concerning the recent nomination for the Nobel. Also, you evince a clear bias and do not use neutral language. You can't put libelous, non-neutral language simply because it is sourced. Also, some of your sources are poor. Seek consensus. If you will read BLP from wikipedia, the onus is on you.

This is your sixth warning.2601:681:4A00:4FE0:14F8:E172:1C68:7C7A (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As pointed out by others in the noticeboard discussion you started, you don't understand BLP. There isn't much point in arguing with you when you don't contribute productively to the article, don't understand that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and when you'll probably be blocked soon anyway, after edit-warring against nearly half a dozen editors to blank large parts of the article. --Egulbrandsen (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Your personal attacks are tiring. Familiarize yourself with BLP. Most of the editors have agreed with me. Your comments seem very disturbed, and bring disrepute on the wikipedia page. Wiki is about bringing forth the most relevant facts and information, not serving as a tabloid. If you have such angst against a living person, please write an op-en, don't vandalize wiki articles.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:ACF2:664C:2D3E:8B86 (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Far-left political bias
American news outlets for the past 2 days are constantly attacking him as "extremist right". Americans have an election in a few days that relates to this person via his support of Trump via a nomination for a prize. Wikipedia should not reflect what short-term political commentators are doing because the edits of the past 48 hours have turned this article from moderate to "he is approximately Adolf Hitler". -- f s  06:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing far-left about The York Times, The Guardian or the Associated Press, all of which described him as far-right (a term that wasn't even included in this article then they published their articles). Other than that, he has been described as far-right/extreme-right by Norwegian commentators and experts, such as the conscientious scholar Sindre Bangstad, for many years already. --Egulbrandsen (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Is this really correct? Far right translates to høyreekstrem on the English Wikipedia. Tybring-Gjedde is by definition not that, as that would imply he espouses violence and is against democracy. And also, is it really relevant what some media commentators label him as? Bangstad is also known to label all those who want a more restrictive immigration policy as something akin to far right. This term used to denote neonazis and such. Aria 09:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Tybring-Gjedde har been widely described as far-right or extreme-right by high-quality sources such as The New York Times, the Associated Press, and by Norwegian scholars/experts in the fields of right-wing extremism such as Bangstad and others. Wikipedia is not concerned with editors' own ideas of what the term far-right "really" ought to mean. The term is not restricted to people who are personally involved in violence, and is commonly used in public and academic discourse to describe people with e.g. racist views. For example, Björn Höcke of Germany is also described as far-right. In the same way that Björn Höcke is arguably Germany's most right-wing politician of a parliamentary party, Tybring-Gjedde is Norway's most radical right-wing politician of a party represented in parliament. --Egulbrandsen (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Tybring-Gjedde har been widely described as far-right or extreme-right by high-quality leftist sources such as The New York Times, the Associated Press, and by Norwegian scholars/experts in the fields of right-wing extremism such as Bangstad and others leftists. There, I translated that for you. Anyway, you felt no need to smear him before yesterday, when he dared to nominate for Nobel peace prize someone leftists don't like, huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.13.207.11 (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, please check your sources. New York Times is consistently rated left-leaning by Pew and other institutions. https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:ACF2:664C:2D3E:8B86 (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You should read your Pew link more carefully: "Note that this report measures the political leanings of the audience rather than the source itself." Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)