Talk:Tommy Möller

Untitled
Quick look on google - English is bewildering thanks to English--language spammy pages. Some swedish references needed I think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability?
I've never heard of him, despite being interesting in political sciences for 30 years. The article gives no clue to why he has an article. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:ACADEMIC where you will find that "I've have heard of him" is not a criteria for notability. Möller clearly fulfils critera 5 and 7, and could possibly fulfil 1, 4 and 6. By the way, it's interesting to have someone whose user page says "Telling you about my job will only make you prejudiced about what I know... So I will tell you nothing" trying to leverage their professional experience, and more specifically the length of it, in a notability discussion. If you now suddenly are willing to tell us anything, have you worked in all subfields of political science, and do you read anything else than English language sources? If not, then you should perhaps consider if "I've heard of 'em" is an all-round applicable notability standard to all political scientists. My guess is that those you have heard of are notable, but those that you haven't heard of aren't automatically non-notable. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Geez, cool down, will ya. What's with the hysterics?
 * Which named chair or Distinguished Professor title has he held, and why isn't that mentioned? In which way has he made substantial impact outside academia, and why isn't that mentioned? What significant impact has he has on scholarly discipline, if any? How has his worked impacted other academical institutions? What highest-level elected or appointed post has he held? --OpenFuture (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect alot of that will be in Swedish (which I don't speak) so I can't help you there. Hopefully some swedish speakers will find some material - maybe some of the books reviewed etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can only find one book review (by an economist I *have* heard of) and he is underwhelmed: I can't find any references to make Möller notable at all. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Swedish universities do not use "Distinguished Professor" titles, and named chairs are relatively few and not necessarily more prestigious than other well-established professorial chairs. They just happen to be established through a donation from some private person. That WP:ACADEMIC guideline seems a bit flawed in this respect. As for Möller, I have heard of him, as he tends to be asked to comment by media in connection with every Swedish election. Not being particularly interested in political science, I am not otherwise familiar with his work. --Hegvald (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That means we can't use the distinguished professor requirement for Swedish professors, in practice, which makes it harder of course. Are you notable because you are a guy that journalists call when they want to put "says professor XXXX" in their article to make it look like they aren't making it up themselves? :-) Because that would solve the issue. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Swedish professor = chair, Lehrstuhl system. What's the problem? Tomas e (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. However, that's not enough to be notable. See Chair_(academic), for example. What you need to be a distinguished professor, having a named chair. "Many professorships are named in honour of a distinguished person or after the person who endowed the chair. Some chairs have a long history and considerable prestige attached, such as the Gresham Professorships, which date back to the 16th Century, Regius Professorships or the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics." AFAIK Sweden don't have any, but I could be wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds very close to claiming that it is not possible for a Swedish academic to be notable. That is to say unless you've claim to have heard of 'em. Tomas e (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It sounds very close to claiming that they can not be notable through being distinguished or having a named chair, as there are no such things in Sweden, according to Hegvald, above. They can still be notable by any of the other means in WP:ACADEMIC or any other way. No claims that Tommy Möller fulfills any other notability criteria has come forward. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You appear not to have read what I wrote. I have not claimed that there are no named chairs. I wrote that they are "relatively few and not necessarily more prestigious than other well-established professorial chairs". Don't ignore or over-interpret what I actually wrote, please. --Hegvald (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry about that, I interpreted you as this was somehow a difference from how it is in other countries, when in fact it turned out that it's exactly the same elsewhere. So you Sweden do have named chairs, and if you hold one you are notable. Tommy Möller does not. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

After reading up more or this named chair business, it's evident that a named chair is one created by donation by a private person, inside *and* outside of Sweden. Hence, you *can* reach notability through academic positions in Sweden. Now we can discuss if the notability criteria makes sense. I don't know. But this is not the place to discuss them. It's also notable that the department of political science at Stockholm University has 26 professors, 12 of them full professors, and interestingly enough, one named chair: The Lars Hierta chair of political science. And that chair is held by Michele Michaletti. There are still, after days of requests and discussions, no claim that he is notable outside that he is a professor, which is *not* notable according to WP:ACADEMICS. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

List of publications
I completely rewrote the bibliography section. I am sorry for Jack Merridew and others who have spent time formatting it. But there is absolutely no point in repeating every book title in a footnote and link to a commercial website to establish that it exists. Books are the stuff we use to reference other things. If a link should be given anywhere, it should be to the Swedish national union catalogue LIBRIS, maintained by the Royal Library.

In addition, the selection of what was counted as books in the previous version was arbitrary and based on whatever someone had found at Google Books. I have limited it to what Möller himself lists as books, excluding some publications he lists as reports, but also excluding some things that LIBRIS lists as books, as they sometimes list separate offprints of articles and similar things as "books", whenever these happen to get catalogued in one of the catalogues of the "member libraries". --Hegvald (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done. I was checking and formatting these 'references' and had come to the conclusion that most of them should be removed. There were links to books, articles and what looked like extracts from research papers. Nice to know that the stuff mentioned in the bibliography exists, but this number of links was excessive.  pablo hablo. 09:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Partier och Organisationer
I don't know how to format that book properly. It's actually originally written by Mats Bäck, and seems to have had a first edition in 1980 on Liber förlag. It then seems to have had an edition in 1990 written by Mats Bäck and Tommy Möller. I'm guessing Tommy Möller "took it over", but that's just a guess, and have since updated it several more times. How should that be written. Should we write "(with Mats Bäck)" or? But Mats Bäcks name comes first on the cover... ? --OpenFuture (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Article
I think that an unfortunate effect of the Afd has been that the article has become overloaded by material and citations intended to establish notability. What makes Möller notable is the fairly well summarised in the very brief paragraph about him in the Pdf about the political sciences in Sweden: ''Although the work at Stockholm trails that of Göteborg in the field of electoral studies, Tommy Möller’s work on Swedish elections and political parties, some of it co-authored or co-edited with Sören Holmberg at Göteborg, has been recognized both by academic peers andthe public. Möller has also been a frequent commentator on Swedish politics on national television.'' The article doesn't have to say anything more than this. I recommend deleting the section on "other" (his chairing a session at Almedalen isn't really interesting or notable) and "as a political commentator" (this is already covered by the political science source). It will be a short article but I don't think it merits much more at the time being.·Maunus· ƛ · 09:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Peacock language
It's not peacock language, that's nonsense, and as decided in the AfD, Tommy Möller is notable precisely because he has been recognized for his work in the mentioned areas. The article needs to note why he is notable. The sentence noting that he has been recognized for this work must stay. It can be reworded, but it needs to stay. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ""Peacock language" is described as wording "that merely promote the subject of the article without imparting verifiable information". That is precisely what "... has been recognised for ..." does. It confers no information about how that "recognition" actually manifested itself, and is therefore meaningless. It is also unnecessary. If we say "he did X", that already implies that he was recognised for doing X; if he wasn't, we wouldn't be talking about X at all. Adding "he has been recognised for doing X" rather than plain "he did X" has no other function than boost his importance.
 * And no, the article doesn't need to explain "why he is notable". The article ought to be talking about what he did, and nothing else. His notability ought to appear from what he did, without us having to emphasise it; if it doesn't, and if it requires that sort of emphasis, that's just bad luck and shows how borderline the notability was in the first place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think maybe what we could do would be to mention that "his works on swedish politics are often cited in international scholarship" or something like that. ·Maunus· ƛ · 11:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not much use unless we had a well-sourced criterion of what "often" means. Where's the cutoff point between the amount of citation that more or less any academic will get for simply doing his job decently, and the amount of citation that marks an academic as having had a remarkable, higher-than-average kind of impact? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I for one think it is fairly remarkable for a scholar writing in swedish to be cited in languages other than swedish and english.·Maunus· ƛ · 13:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If his specialised topic of research is Swedish politics, and there presumably isn't an overwhelming amount of other non-Swedish research on this Swedish topic domain, then of course academics elsewhere who need to touch on the topic (as in a comparative survey of party politics in various European countries ) can't avoid using him as a source. That shows he's respected as a bona fide researcher, but in itself it doesn't show more than that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * His notability can't appear from what he did, as his notability comes from being recognized by others. And no, "He did X" does not imply he got recognized for it. It sounds stupid. We got a decision that said he was notable, and then we need to have an article that explains how and shows that he is so. Don't try to sabotage it to make him sound non-notable just because you (and I) think he isn't. We got a decision, let's stick to it. Now the article should be improved. Don't make edits to make a point.
 * And indeed, peacock language is when you boost the subject without verifiable information. But this *is* verifiable information. The original sentence I added is a direct quote from the source. It is *not* peacock language. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Fut is slightly more correct here - the article isn't supposed to describe how notable he is - it is supposed t show it. Its the famous principle of "show don't tell" at work. The article is only supposed to inform the reader about what its topic has done, not evaluate it. The fact that the article is here shows the reader that wikipedia considers its topic notable - we don't have to tell it as well. ·Maunus· ƛ · 14:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We are not evaluating it, it's a quote from a report, and that quote is in fact the main reason this article still exists. If we can show that he is notable without it, fine, but there has been a lot of effort during more than a week now, which got nowhere. Anyway, I removed the notability tag because I added that sentence. If the sentence goes, the notability tag might need to go back, because without it this article does not show notability. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tommy Möller. 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/20120303020435/http://www.cm.se/webbshop_vr/pdfer/VR2002_1.pdf to http://www.cm.se/webbshop_vr/pdfer/VR2002_1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303020435/http://www.cm.se/webbshop_vr/pdfer/VR2002_1.pdf to http://www.cm.se/webbshop_vr/pdfer/VR2002_1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091105053036/http://www.sr.se/sida/artikel.aspx?ProgramID=2492&Artikel=829645 to http://www.sr.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2492&artikel=829645
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718201406/http://www.statsvet.su.se/homepages/tommy_moller.htm to http://www.statsvet.su.se/homepages/tommy_moller.htm

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) 01:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)