Talk:Mads Gilbert

Quote by Amundsen
The quote by Amundsen is borderline libelous and I don't see how it adds to the article. Not sure this follows Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: "(...) written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone". 62.16.134.69 (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Before responding in depth, may I inquire if you are capable of viewing the reference from where it is sourced, i.e. speak Norwegian? It is by no means libelous, but anyone may suggest words to achieve an even more precise translation. M URGH   disc.  00:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Some chiming in from another Norwegian: It's certainly a fairly accurate translation - I can't think of a better wording. However, if one doesn't read the article, it may seem that editor Amundsen is only critical of Dr Gilbert. I don't think it is quite the case - Amundsen is only describing his actions, and adding his opinion (and being bloody honest while doing so, of course). Perhaps it might help to add the part earlier in the DB article if we manage to translate "et fyrverkeri av et menneske" (good gods, how DO you translate that?! "A firework of a human" just doesn't seem... right) to further illustrate editor Amundsen's opinion of Gilbert. While I don't think it is entirely necessary to add it to the article, as I know the spirit of Amundsen's words, it might help some. Thoughts? Mirithing (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Amundsen's comments are balanced and honest, and the criticism is in context of respect. If the article gives the impression this is a hostile critic taking cheap shots, it would be good to mend this. That phrase is certainly not that easy to translate, the metaphor may not carry over well. "a fireworks display of a man" / "A human display of fireworks"  feels iffy..  M URGH   disc.  13:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

difference betwen citing and quoting
While we should verify all of our information with reliable sources, we do not have to write as they do when citing them. There is a difference between citing and quoting. This is key.

The encyclopedic voice requires that we present information in a neutral manner. "Politician" in English is usually reserved for people who run for office, have (or have had) a political office or are professional leaders of political parties. When used for people who are neither it has the weight of partisan epithet (i.e. questioning the motives of the subject). "Political activist" is a more standard neutral description for citizens active in politics but that are not running for office or are officers in a party or group.

Furthermore the claim that his popularity took a steep decline is sourced from an opinion piece in one source. Since this is an extraordinary claim, verifiability with multiple reliable sources should be done: if this is not done the sentence should be removed, or quoted and attributed to the source. For example, the fact that the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Norway is defending him patently questions the truth of the statement: I doubt such a politician would risk their career defending someone if their popularity was in decline.

There are other examples of WP:WTA and WP:WEASEL around here, and fixing them is our responsibility.

We are under no obligation to - and under NPOV/RS, we shouldn't - to write as truth whatever any writer writes around any subject. We must subject sources to verifiability in general, and when extraordinary claims are made we should exclude them unless verified. Reliance upon opinion pieces not otherwise verified by reliable sources is strongly frowned upon.

Lastly, this is a biography of a living person, a special kind of article, subject to much more strict interpretation of sources and a much more strict need for verifiability when doing assertions that can be seen as negative. Before reverting changes intended to provide neutrality and encyclopedic voice, please consider this. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * While you mention some healthy reminders, I disagree strongly that a paper source is invalid for a BLP. It was central to the very first reference I used when I started this article. It was coincidentally in print, but what it contends, that there was some passionate reactions (and some rather zealously offensive statements made against him) among those that interpreted what he told Dagbladet a very short time after 9/11, shouldn't be an illogical stretch or surprise to anyone. It is known, and I have an RS saying it. I don't think BLP circumvents this. Please don't rationalize how Støre would never defend such a man if he had once been smeared in media. Not very insightful nor "patently" proving anything. As far as the "politician"/"political activist" I don't care deeply, except that it is what the source states- politiker..lege. These are what is compared. Quotation marks would editorialize that. Gilbert has been politically active since the 70s (67 if counting when he volunteered for Isaeli service), infrequently acting as a "politican" (member of AKP (m-l), 3 periods as Troms fylkestingspolitiker for RV, later Rødt), and has also acted as a "political activist" (for the Palestine cause), another role altogether. I see your Babel states you speak some Norwegian, and if you are committed to this I'd ask you to look more closely at the sources. I'll remove this article off my watchlist now, having only intended to look over it during the initial DYK phase, as WPbehaviour surrounding articles of these topics grow more uncivil than what I prefer.  M URGH   disc.  01:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say that "politician" is correct since he has been a delegate to the county assembly. But on the other hand it is his activism that has made him notable for the english wp. To Cerejota: The minister backed him in the Gaza case, no one backed him when he came with the 9/11 statements. Some understood his argument (which was kind of an attempt to conceptualize and relativize the 9/11 events), but to say that he was controversial and unpopular at that moment would be an understatement. I do however feel that the sentence is a bit unencyclopedical (that was not spelled correctly, was it?). So, to sum up: Politician/political activist? Both, but mostly the latter. Steep decline? True, but I don't like the style of the sentence. pertn (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but if we don't interpret his role for a moment, can be we concrete about the quoted segment? "-Du reiser som politiker, mer enn som lege?  - Jeg mener de to rollene er uatskillelige. Det er lite innen medisinen som ikke er politikk."  The intial noun here, the premise of the question, is "politiker", not "politisk aktivist" which is also an available term in the Norwegian language, yet in this case just isn't employed.   M URGH   disc.  21:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Little Green Footballs
Its not a reliable secondary source: if there is a controversy, it should be covered by reliable sources, and then we can use LGF as a primary source for the criticism. WP:RS is very clear on this.

We should be careful when voicing WP:FRINGE ideas on a BLP.--Cerejota (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it was not a correct RS. Sorry about that. I was just trying to mend other people's mistakes. I do however believe that the (in my opinion outrageous) allegation of staging of the video, which are all over the blogosphere should be mentioned. Gilbert actually mentions the allegations and responds to them in an interview himself and also, the referenced article by CNN mentioned that "bloggers" has questioned the video. I believe that it is better that we make sure that this is mentioned and referenced properly in a NPOV way, rather than having some conservative blog readers starts trying to push their POV here, and then having fix it through heated debate. The issue is: Several bloggers are aggressively claiming that its a fake. This is denied by the cameraman, his publisher and Gilbert, who also says he will publish his own pictures of this. Gilberts response to international media, he switches to english after the start of the interview. http://www.tv2nyhetene.no/innenriks/article2503942.ece
 * What I think we should do is to find a RS mentioning the blogs by names. I do however think that for now, it will do to write "some bloggers" and reference the CNN denial.
 * pertn (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How about this source then? It is a bad newspaper, and the journalist seems unbelievably ignorant, but still a newspaper and not a blog: http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=1174055 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pertn (talk • contribs) 11:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Now CNN has squashed these claims, so I post their video report summarizing both the claims and the response. This issue is important to have here. If you do a little googling, you will see that the allegations are all over the place in right wing and pro-israel blogs. pertn (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Mads Gilbert is a hero!

Article introduction
As it stands (after long-standing content was suddenly deleted), two editors now seem to insist it is either "weasel", "biased", or "BLP violation" to have a single short sentence in the introduction (among the otherwise one-sided praise) noting that Gilbert's political activism and comments have been the subject of controversy. Major controversies being that he once expressed support for terrorism against the West, specifically expressing support for the September 11 attacks, as well as being behind a number of other controversial initiatives, open conflict (from both sides) with Médecins Sans Frontières, allegations of facilitating propaganda from Hamas, and activism which resulted in a shortfall of doctors for humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan.

If the problem is it's "weasel" the solution should be to give more detailed accounts of the controversies (which I don't support as the introduction is supposed to be brief summary), and claiming that describing his own actions are "biased" or "BLP violation" doesn't make any sense. The sources that even specifically describe him as controversial are The Local/AFP and Verdens Gang (the Guardian source is perhaps more subjective). User2534 (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You tried to get this sentence into the lead: "Gilbert has been the subject of controversy for his political activism; he once expressed support for the September 11 attacks", supposedly supported by 3 sources. But only one of those sources mentioned the 9/11 attacks, and, if you compare it with what Gilbert actually said, (see under "Opinion on the September 11 attacks") was not correct. This form of outrageous misrepresenting of his opinions (in the lead, no less) is clearly a WP:BLP violation. Huldra (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That part was added due to the supposed "weasel" problem, but I'm fine with only the original sentence if you are. User2534 (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Huldra. The sentence was both WP:WEASEL, a POV misrepresentation and a BLP violation, especially the blatantly false and slanderous claim about his supposed "support for the September 11 attacks" (the article clarifies below that he said no such thing and even retracted the 14-year old comment in question). I fail to see how someone who has been knighted by Norway's king and who seems to enjoy broad support in his country from all mainstream factions, and who has been lauded by NATO's incumbent secretary-general for humanitarian work, could reasonably be called "controversial" by anyone except extremists; in any event, such weasel terms are not terms we use in biographies. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why did he regret his comment then if there was no problem? And it took him 8 (!) years to even do that! Anyway that's only one of many controversies. He has been heavily criticised by Norways current government party, which was the second largest party for many years, so the praise is far from unanimous. The fairly common order awarded to Gilbert - for his emergency medical work - does not preclude him from being a controversial figure, and there are sources that specifically state this. That's what it's about, and you're making outragous claims about mainstream sources being "far-right" and/or "extremist", and describing Gilberts own comments apparently being slanderous. User2534 (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that the extreme right (with links to Breivik) is attacking him doesn't mean that their attacks belong in the lead section of this article. He enjoys broad support for his humanitarian work and for being a voice to the world (in the words of NATO's current secretary-general) from the left to the mainstream right in Norway as the article points out. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you try to divert attention to everything else and refuse to discuss the topic, namely how to include just a brief note about the numerous controversies Gilbert has been involved with, I'll assume it means that you admit to having nothing more to add. User2534 (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Which "controversies" other than occasional attacks by the far-right fringe? If there is anything relevant to say in regard to that, it belongs below (where it is in fact already discussed). We don't label people as "controversial" in the lead section because they are disliked by the far right. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The controversies I pointed to in my first post. User2534 (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Protection
I've fully protected the article for three days due to the ongoing edit war. Please try to reach a consensus for the proposed changes to the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The main problem with the lead is that it fails to give any mention to Gilbert's well-known controversial political activism and beliefs. Another issue is that half the lead is composed of unanimous praise of his emergency work, then it suddenly says that he has been banned from entering Israel without any clue to the background for the conflict. (Did you notice by the way that the edit war was started by editors deleting content, and not the other way around?) User2534 (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The main problem is that you tried to insert, into the lead, no less, the sentence (in the footnote) "Gilbert’s is a controversial figure in Norway, where he is considered to be on the far-left fringe of politics. Following the 9/11 attacks in 2001 he said he supported terror attacks against the US, saying western foreign policy justified them." The second half of that is completely unacceptable; if you have read what Gilbert actually said, (and later regretted) it was not like that. I don´t mind something along the first half, say; "Gilbert belongs to the far-left of the political spectre in Norway": (Which he undisputedly does.)  Words like "controversial" is rather meaningless; we could just as well  say that Siv Jensen is "a controversial figure in Norway". Huldra (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a direct quote from the source (which is why it was added in the first place, to point it out for the context). User2534 (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But it does not match with what Gilbert actually said, (go to the original interview)..and even those words he said he later regretted. Huldra (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "When asked if he supported a terrorist attack against the US he answered: "Terror is a poor weapon, but my answer is yes, within the context I have mentioned."" This in turn led the head of the Norwegian Médecins Sans Frontières to say that Gilbert's beliefs made him unsuited to work for the organisation, which five years later(!), in 2006, led Gilbert to call for a boycott against the entire organisation! User2534 (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "within the context I have mentioned" ...and then you proceed to quote him, without the context...nicely done. He said that people had a "moral right" to retaliate against the West, after what the West had done to them. And he later said his words were "unwise and ill-considered". Why do you want to cherry-pick his  most controversial and non-representative views and put them into the lead?  To do so, would be  a WP:BLP-violation, quite simply.
 * And he does not support Médecins Sans Frontiers, as MSF never takes sides in a conflict. Gilbert himself most certainly take sides; that is  a thing we can agree on, I hope  Huldra (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Terrorism is terrorism, regardless of motive (especially killing 3,000 innocent people). User2534 (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The article makes it perfectly clear that he has never supported any terrorist attacks, and that he even retracted his somewhat clumsily worded comment years ago. "I am upset by the terrorist attack, but I am at least as upset over the suffering that the US has caused. It is in this context that 5000 dead has to be seen. If the U.S. government has a legitimate right to bomb and kill civilians in Iraq, the oppressed has a moral right to attack the U.S. with the weapons they may create as well" is obviously not a support of the attack, but makes a perfectly legitimate point on a theoretical/ethical level that is hardly considered "controversial" in a European context. If you feel that killing 3,000 people is terrorism, how do you feel about the 224,000 people (including the 170,000 civilians) killed by Bush in Iraq, the point Gilbert was addressing? Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We could easily find a ton of sources which said that Siv Jensen and her anti-immigrant party are "controversial" in Norway and belong on the far right. The problem with "controversial" is that it is an utterly meaningless and WP:WEASELy term; anything could be said to be "controversial" from a certain (sometimes fringe) perspective. The article does not fail to mention that Gilbert is a left-wing socialist, in fact it is mentioned in the very first sentence ("politician for the revolutionary socialist Red Party"), despite the fact that he is chiefly known for medical and humanitarian work. Should we also mention in biographies of all politicians of Jensen's anti-immigrant party that they are "controversial" and belong to the far right? (Not to mention the article on George W. Bush, who is widely condemned and reviled in almost the entire world for illegal wars of aggression, torture and murder of much more than 3,000 civilians, and whose actions are often described by many highly credible sources as war crimes; yet his article does not label him "controversial" in the lead.) Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead section about Bush actually includes numerous mentions of controversies, criticisms and protests against him, so it's exactly what I advocate here. Still, this isn't a political debate so please try to keep these rants to yourself, it's not helping anyone, yourself the least. User2534 (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it does, but it mentions that he been involved in controversies (which no-one can deny)...not that he is a controversial person. There is quite a fine distinction there, Huldra (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The brief sentence read: "Gilbert has been the subject of controversy for his political activism." If the exact wording is the problem please suggest a solution. User2534 (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not quite starting a war in Iraq, is it then? If Gilbert had only been known as a politician he might ..possibly... have a bio on the Norwegian Wikipedias (as he has been elected to local councils), but certainly not here. The "controversy for his political activism" is simply not what he is mainly known for. He is known, both in Norway, and especially outside, overwhelmingly  for his medical work. The lead should reflect that. (Btw, how would you like it if  someone added  "Jensen has been the subject of controversy for her political activism" in Siv Jensen´s bio? I could easily find lots of  sources saying so....even in English. ) Huldra (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * His political activism is overtly mixed with his medical work, calling for boycotts of one of the world's most renowned humanitarian organisations because they "don't take sides in concflicts", i.e. to medically boycott entire nations. And it is extremely unique for a medical doctor to even consider, let alone in full public in a newspaper interview, that killing innocent people in any way can be legitimate due to some notion of "moral right", and then in turn work successfully to cripple humanitarian efforts in a country. It has everything to do with medical work. User2534 (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Where I live, MSF's representative some years ago was known to aggressively heckle and harrass people if they didn't give his organization money (he was attempting to collect money in a public place). So "renowned" is not a description that springs to mind when you mention MSF. The fact is that there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of purported charities who collect money from people and who claim to be the saviours of the world. There is no obligation to support a particular charity, and Gilbert's rationale for not supporting the private organization MSF is perfectly reasonable and within his rights. I find it very odd indeed that you try to use the fact that he doesn't support one particular charity (because it doesn't take a stand against occupation and war crimes) as a personal attack against him. Your rant above seems to be mainly about the fact that you don't like Gilbert, and seems to have little to do with improvement of this article. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

User2534: IMO you are getting close to libel, here. Gilbert have said (like here, in 2009) that he is completely against using terror agains civilians. As to "to medically boycott entire nations": he was against having medical personnel "embedded" with Norwegian military forces in Afghanistan..which is something else. Personally, I have absolutely nothing against MSF....but it is after all, a legitimate opinion not to support them. Huldra (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We go by reliable sources, not personal opinions that contradict RS. User2534 (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And  this is a WP:RS. And far more representative of his views. Huldra (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that this was important enough to write an entire article about (in 2009) is evidence in itself that it has been, and still is, a highly relevant side to Gilbert. The goal of Wikipedia is to present a balanced view, all you do is attempt to whitewash this into an "All Hail Gilbert" advertisement. Is it so horrible to have a tiny sentence mentioning his subject to controversy? If anything you should be glad that's all I'm advocating and not more. User2534 (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I broadly support the lead suggestion by User 2534 as in this version. I believe the lead suggested by T. Nowak which includes a lot of praise, but no suggestion of controversy surrounding Gilbert is too hagiographic. I agree with Nowak (below) though that we don't necessarily need to include the details of the Israel ban. I also have removed the "Arctic circle" wording of his place of living. The ordinary encyclopedic writing is simply to write that a person lives in Tromsø; potentially Tromsø, Northern Norway, not "romantizising" it by adding arctic circle". Iselilja (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Moving details below
I think the details regarding the official reason provided by Israel from banning him from Israel should be moved to the section below, per WP:UNDUE. It is sufficiently notable to be mentioned in the introduction, in a slightly shorter form, only because it inhibits his humanitarian work in Palestine (for which he is known), but in itself being banned from entering Israel by the far right government there is not taken seriously anywhere else in the world, as they routinely ban academics or Nobel laureates who criticize them as well. I have no problem with including the fact that Israel says the reason was contact with Hamas leaders below (which is hardly considered a very strong or sensational accusation, as they are the governing party there and considering the fact that Norwegian conservative politicians also have meetings with Hamas, and having contact with Hamas is hardly considered any more controversial than meeting their Israeli counterparts in the Israeli government). Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't have any authority to delete content because you don't agree with it, especially when you make blatantly obvious POV claims about everyone you don't like being "far-right", now apparently also including the Israeli government. User2534 (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mads Gilbert. 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/20070928062031/http://www.tromso.kommune.no/index.gan?id=2775&subid=0 to http://www.tromso.kommune.no/index.gan?id=2775&subid=0

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, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Please i need dr mads email
I want to accompany him to gaza Iam a qulified dentist 41.43.159.235 (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)