Talk:Marianne Ihlen

Questions about her marraige to Stang
In 2013 she told Norwegian newspaper Nordlys she had been happily married for 32 years. If the article is correct that she married Stang in 1979 then either he had recently passed away, or she regarded two years of their marraige as unhappy. I chose to leave in the unreferenced 1979 date. Geo Swan (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Has been removed, plain and simple. Avoid speculations such as "or she regarded two years of their marraige [sic] as unhappy". Sam Sailor 01:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , could you please make a greater effort to comply with WP:BATTLEGROUND. There is no need to use aggressive, confrontational language.
 * With regard to policy barring speculation. Policy bars speculating, in article space.  Discussions on talk page, intended to help make sure the material in article space, is accurate, correctly interprets and summarizes RS, when those RS are not clear, is not barred by policy.  On the contrary, it is one of the prime reasons articles have talk pages.
 * Did you mean to characterize Ihlen, herself, describing her second marraige as happy, as "speculation"? If so, please consult a dictionary.  Do you really mean to question whether Ihlen should be regarded as reliable source about her own happiness?  Geo Swan (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Was Ihlen misquoted? Did she just make a mistake as could any of us having been married for decades? It's irrelevant, the quote is trivial as has been removed as such. Sam Sailor 21:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Lena
Several articles project-wide contains a line saying something to the effect that "Axel Jensen had a relationship with Cohen's girlfriend Lena." In no instance is this claim sourced.

It seems to have been first introduced by a Norwegian IP to no:Axel Jensen on 30 August 2005, then to Swedish Wikipedia on 3 September 2005, and found its way to the English Wikipedia on 23 September 2005.

Since then it found its way into en:Marianne Ihlen on its creation 14 August 2016‎. Unsourced. And from there it entered German Wikipedia on 22 October 2016 quote "Axel Jensen hatte eine kurze Affäre mit Cohens damaliger Freundin.", French Wikipedia on 3 November 2016 quote "Son mari l'auteur norvégien, Axel Jensen l'a quitte pour Lena, la propre petite amie de Leonard Cohen", and Chinese Wikipedia 20 November 2016 quote "詹森和科恩的女友莉娜有着微妙的关系. ".

I suppose this Lena could be the Swedish woman Lena Folke-Olsson (Thresher, 2004; Jensen & Mejlænder, 2002;) with whom Jensen had two kids and lived in Larvik, Norway from 1962, and Folke-Olsson was indeed part of the group of foreign artist living on Hydra, Greece (Hesthamar, 2014, pp. 78-). I can, however, find no mention of Cohen having had a relationship to any Lena, in fact neither Simmons, 2012, nor Nadel, 2010, mentions any Lena at all. Thus, I'm going to do a round on the project pages mentioned and remove the statement. Unfortunately, several news sources have already picked up this error and printed it as a fact.

— Sam Sailor 06:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * References:

Calling and
and made essentially the same edit:. I explained on User talk:Paloalto65 why I disagreed with this excision. Paloalto65 turned out to be a contributor with just a single edit, who didn't reply to my comment. Since Paloalto65 and 50.151.4.121 seem to be brand new contributors, they may not realize that editing using multiple wiki-ids can trigger concern someone has used multiple IDs to appear multiple people agree with a view that only a single person holds.

Paloalto65 and 50.151.4.121, if you are two IDs, used by a single individual, please pick one, and stick to it.

As I noted in my edit summary, here, as a courtesy, it is a very good idea to not rely solely on an edit summary to explain your reasoning for a complicated or controversial edit. Sorry, but this is one of the most common triggers for edit wars. It may be the most common trigger for edit wars. There is a strong temptation for those who disagree with the edit to reply with an edit summary of their own, when they revert the edit.

Decoding discussions that take place solely in edit summaries can be extremely painful, or even impossible. Typically, they require stepping through each change, one at a time. And it is a huge disservice to third parties, who should feel entitled to be able to read a coherent explanation for big changes, on the article's talk page.

The edit both Paloalto65 and 50.151.4.121 made was to remove a paragraph where an RS had compared Marianne Ihlen with Lana Del Rey. As I explained on User talk:Paloalto65:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * You excised the paragraph asserting you suspected someone was lapsing from our standards and conventions barring self-promotion.
 * I drafted that paragraph. I have absolutely zero association with Cohen, Ihlen, Del Rey, Ihlen's Norwegian biographer, or the reviewer who wrote about the association that struck her about Del Rey and Ihlen.  Please be a lot more careful in leveling accusations!  
 * Our articles are supposed to be based on Verifyable sources, authoritative WP:reliable sources, writing about our topics. When an RS writes about how one topic we cover is related to another topic we cover, that is precisely the kind of thing we should include in our articles.
 * So, could you please familiarize yourself more fully with our core policies before you make bold edits?
 * Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Paloalto65 and 50.151.4.121, the first excision accused me of a conflict of interest. 50.151.4.121, your explanation asserted the paragraph contained, "conjecture". It contained an opinion. Opinions, of reliable sources, when properly attributed, do belong in articles. Geo Swan (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * }


 * No, not every opinion somebody has uttered somewhere belongs in an article. It must be a relevant opinion, either because it has found public resonance or because it was published by a recognised expert in the field or because it contains obviously important new insights into the topic in question. But why is it relevant for Marianne Ihlen, when some Lana Del Rey reviewer has recently read Hesthamars biography and feels there are certain similarities between Marianne Ihlen and Lana Del Rey? This is a purely subjective statement, there are no indications whatsoever that anybody except Alexandra Molotkow has had this impression, so why should it be relevant enough for Wikipedia? --Jossi (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)