Talk:Kjell Inge Røkke

Røkke is NOT a criminal
Removed category criminal. It is not correct to have Røkke in that category. That someone have served jailtime does not mean that they are criminals, so this category should not by any means be in this article. Ulflarsen (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed the category criminal on Røkke, I have also removed infobox criminal. The sentence should be mentioned in the article but that does not mean he is a criminal. Ulflarsen (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * He was convicted of a crime in a court of law and subsequently served time in prison. Please explain how that does _not_ make him a criminal.
 * The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives the following definition for "criminal":
 * a person who has been convicted of a crime
 * This definition inarguably applies to Røkke so I request to have him added to the respective category again. 185.68.78.242 (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Røkke is no criminal, added article to noticeboard
Røkke can in my opinion not be listed as a criminal, and as the user that has changed the content of the article has not engaged in discussing it before he added it I have listed the article on Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard so it can be checked and corrected. Ulflarsen (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. __meco (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please keep this discussion here rather than expanding it to other pages. That will ensure relevant discussions, edits, etc. are available to future editors.  momoricks   (make my day)  00:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

To Momoricks: I am fully aware of that content on a page should be discussed on its discussionpage, but to achieve a meaningful discussion one have to have a counterpart that engages. The user Moshe Sharon III that reverted my removal of the labeling of Mr Røkke as a criminal did not engage, on the contrary he left the following edit summary: "Rv vandalism/removal of verified notable information".

From that I could see no other action but to try to get other editors involved, I am not going to revert/remove as I believe this could only result in another revert from said user. So it is really up to other users to change this, if they find that labeling a person criminal for being in prison for such a short time is meaningless. Ulflarsen (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest soliciting more opinions from WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. The one person who added their voice certainly did not support the categorizing of Røkke as a criminal. __meco (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to correct myself. From the response on the WikiProject talk page, User:Wildhartlivie did not appear to support the use of this infobox, however, I now see that this user has been reinstating the contentious infobox. More opinions and a substantive discussion still is wanting though. __meco (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the change I did to the article. What I removed was infobox criminal and category criminal + some detail that he ordered pizza's to his fellow inmates. I did not remove information about the criminal case as it clearly should be there, given the massive media attention to it in Norway.

I have not argued against having information about the criminal case and his conviction, but in the larger picture it does not mean he is a criminal, so it is wrong to label him as that. Mr. Røkke is a well integrated, respected man in Norwegian society, while the picture this article gives is that he is a criminal. So again, the category criminal should be removed and the infobox criminal should be removed and there should be a infobox businessman, which is what he is known as and is most successful as. Ulflarsen (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Using Infobox Criminal is absurd, as Mr. Røkke primarily is known as a seafood and shipbuilding tycoon (and as a football investor). 24 days in prison for a crime not related to his work does not change that. --Kjetil r (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'm neutral. As long as we apply the same standard to this article as we do to every other biography on Wikipedia I can live with it. The problem seems to be to dig up some precedents to compare with. I propose we remove the infobox/categories out of BLP caution and only introduce them to the article when and if a consensus has formed to do so. __meco (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The use of "infobox criminal" is simply hilarious, but seriously, this is far off in a biography. Its like writing about speed driving, or perhaps who did, or did not, inhale&hellip; Throw it out, it has nothing to do in a biography. Jeblad (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It was not a trivial offence. He bribed a public official. That is rather serious. The fact that he did it to obtain something trivial (a skipper licence so he could navigate his large pleasure craft) and not some financial advantage doesn't change that, although I suspect the offence was more serious for the person who accepted the bribe. __meco (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree that bribing an official is not a trivial offence. But in light of the sentence the judge must have believed that his actions were somehow not that serious as he got a total of 120 days, and only 30 of them in jail. If the bribing had a connection to his business it would in my opinion been different, but that was not the case. One should also remember that Røkke is a fisherman with many years expericence, that he could not legally skipper his boat while a 16 year old kid can skipper a boat a couple meters shorter is also part of the picture and possibly something the judge took into consideration in handing down such a mild verdict. Ulflarsen (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

For Category:American criminals it is stipulated that: «For inclusion in this category, a person must: Have been [...] convicted of a notable felony [...] or Have committed notable and unambiguously verifiable felony criminal acts». From Category talk:American criminals I see no reason why the quoted part of the stipulation should not hold for other nationalities as well. I further see no reason why the felony in question should be considered notable, any more than Barack Obama's cocaine use. And you don't see him categorized as a criminal. And of course he shouldn't be. That would be absurd. About as absurd as this. Likewise, categorizing him as a «prisoner or detainee» would be as absurd as categorizing Paris Hilton and Martin Luther King, Jr. as such. So yeah, get rid of those categories. — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that the prisoner/detainee categorization is a different matter. It may or may not be judged on par with the categorization as a criminal. __meco (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree; it is a different matter. However, in my judgment, the absurdity thereof is indeed on par with that of the categorization as a criminal.  If its contentiousness also turns out to be on par, I'll eventually find time to write up a more solid argument; for now I'm hoping comparison with Hilton and King will do. — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am actually somewhat surprised that we are having this discussion now – that these inclusion criteria haven't been succinctly and uniformly described long ago following a thorough discussion of a general nature, not in relation to one contentious biography. __meco (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The infobox criminal has been removed, now its only the category criminal left, I still believe it does not in any way fit here as I have argued extensively above. If there is no arguments for keeping this category I suggest it is removed. Ulflarsen (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As there appears to be consensus on the issue not to have it I have removed it. __meco (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for any misunderstanding related to my comment at the top of this section. It is in reference to the note by Meco that includes the link to the WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography talk page. Meco asked a question there related to this article's infobox and a project member answered. That's fine; however, Ulflarsen later added their opinion on the matter, which should be kept to this page per WP:MULTI.

If I may offer my opinion regarding the infobox and categories, currently the article establishes Røkke's notability as a businessman who is involved with association football clubs, although this information needs more citations. The information regarding his criminal conviction is one sentence, which suggests it is notable enough to mention but has little to do with his overall notability. Therefore, the person infobox appears to be the most appropriate one for this article.

Regarding the article's categories, Categorization_of_people states "Category:Criminals should only be added if the incident is relevant to the person's notability; it has been published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal."

If there continues to be differing opinions on the infobox and categories, you may want to open an RfC.  momoricks   (make my day)  00:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This four-fold requirement is interesting and obviously very useful in this case. I also applied it to remove the categorization as a criminal of Nawaz Sharif, the former Pakistani prime minister who was convicted of hijacking an airplane. I think for future discussions these two biographies should both be considered. __meco (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I was reverted. See Talk:Nawaz Sharif. __meco (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Special treatment for Kjell Inge Røkke?
Apparently, there has been a campaign over at the Norwegian Wikipedia, where contributors have been recruited to remove categories from this article or support such removals. Kjell Inge Røkke has been convicted of bribing a public official and has served time in prison, this is verified information, and it's not trivial, but rather serious. Other public persons who are criminally convicted are systematically categorized as criminals, without exception, at least if they are Americans or otherwise known to an English-speaking audience (Lewis Libby, who hasn't even been in prison). It seems Kjell Inge Røkke is getting special treatment because he is a rich person (and few non-Norwegians know about him and care about the article)? It's not the first time, though, he also got special treatment in prison and was allowed to order pizzas, which other inmates are not allowed. Moshe Sharon III (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * — Moshe Sharon III (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * To Moshe Sharon III, you are most welcome to argue your case. No one has argued that the information regarding the sentence should be removed from the article and as you can see it's still there. When it comes to the category criminal and the use of the infobox criminal my argument is as follows:


 * To be of use, categories should say something rather essential of a person, that is - what as it implies, what category the person can be placed in. Working a summer on a ferry does not qualify to be categorized as a seaman, and neither does a short prison sentence qualify to have a person listed as a criminal. Røkke got 120 days and of these 30 days was jail time, the rest, 90 days was dependent on good behaviour. Libby got 30 months in prison and a 250K fine, quite a difference if you ask me.


 * But to use the category criminal useful, I believe there should be some assessment of whether the person actually lives off this, if it is repeated or not. Neither Libby or Røkke has as far as I know been in prison before and neither makes a living out of it. Both should have the trial and verdict mentioned in their articles, they can not escape that, but having done something wrong once does not make one a criminal. Ulflarsen (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Further to the above: It is just not true that "public persons who are criminally convicted are systematically categorized as criminals, without exception, at least if they are Americans or otherwise known to an English-speaking audience". See Paris Hilton for one exception.  I doubt you would have any trouble finding others. — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Temper tantrums
I post here a recent article describing that Røkke is predisposed to present himself in a very immature, and often threatening, manner when things are not going the way he wants them to. It may be regarded as an opinion piece, however it is written by Aftenposten's Moscow correspondent who, according to his own say-so spent a decade basically chronicling Røkke's career. BLP issues suggest to me this nevertheless is insufficient for using it to reference any additions of negative details about Røkke's personality. If other sources attesting to the same should surface, however, this may become a viable topic for article inclusion. __meco (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Another article which follows up on this. __meco (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Kjell Inge Røkke. 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/20110524063606/http://www.aftenposten.no/english/business/article1855377.ece?service=print to http://www.aftenposten.no/english/business/article1855377.ece?service=print
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hegnar.no/personlig_okonomi/article317828.ece
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hegnar.no/okonomi/article317697.ece
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://e24.no/naeringsliv/article2142600.ece
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aftenposten.no/english/business/article1751269.ece
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://e24.no/lov-og-rett/article2010393.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) 23:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)