Talk:Fjordman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of Blogging WikiProject, an attempt to build better coverage of Blogging on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on May 22, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Speedy deletion

Fjordman is a well known blogger in the field of Islam in Europe. His posts are frequently quoted all over the internet (in Wikipedia as well) and therefore it is important for people to know who and what he is. This article is still a stub, but it should be added to, not deleted. Misheu 10:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources (WP:RS) supporting these claims. 83.233.154.50 10:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion is easy, actually contributing is a bit more difficult. Why don't you join the effort instead of working only on destroying what others worked on? As a researcher of Islam, I can tell you that Fjordman's articles are widely quoted. Do a google search and see. If you need more proof, how about you bring up a specific topic (I'm sure you're involved in this field, otherwise you wouldn't know what to delete) and I'll show you how Fjordman affected the debate on it? Misheu 11:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

All I'm asking for is that you, if the blog indeed is notable, provide reliable second hand sources asserting this. If finding such sources through google is such an easy task, I can not see why it is too much to ask that you present them. Also, please make sure you abide Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks - suggesting I'm only trying to "destroy" what others have worked on is unfounded and moreover, insulting. 83.233.154.50 15:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not a registered user, and therefore I'd like to make sure you're not just deleting left and right without reason. I looked up your contributions and found they're mostly "speedy deletion" requests, which makes me wonder why. That's the reason for my comment and i'm sorry that you got insulted. I wouldn't have reacted this way if I saw you were registered and contributing.

Can you give me a source saying the New York Times is important? How would you go about proving it?

A few facts about Fjordman: 1. his defunct site already has more than a million hits. 2. he guest writes on quite a few blogs and sites, some of which are featured in wikipedia and his articles are carried on various blogs and news sites: (FrontPageMag, Jihad Watch, Brussels Journal, Faith Freedom International, Little Green Footballs and Daily Pundit among others (this is just the first two pages of google 3. he serves as a news source for some wikipedia articles, and regardless whether you agree or not that it should be this way, people should be able to check out *who* this guy is, so they can decide on their own whether they believe what he writes or not. 4. a google search of 'fjordman' gives 265,000 responses. 5. He is a leading figure in affecting the discussion about Islam and the West. Things Fjordman writes are copied over and over all over the web. In general bloggers who go against the media will usually not appear there, so I'm unclear how you want me to prove that he's quoted all over (besides the facts i bring above) Misheu 18:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I could. See WP:RS as well as WP:ATT and WP:NOTABILITY. It's about WP policy and it's not something I made up. If you have a problem with them, take it up with Jimbo. Also, that I was writing that from an anon IP (which is a shared IP) is not an excuse for being incivil (see WP:CIV). Just do everybody a favour and read through the policies. It doesn't matter if you write 10 pages full of arguments for keeping the article if you're not following the policies.

As for the 265,000 google hits, I'd like to inform you that Fjordman is an actual surname, in use in all the Scandinavian countries (Norway, Denmark, Sweden). Mackan 18:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, delete the article. Fjordman is not going to appear in the New York Times, but he is affecting how millions of people think about Islam. Obviously that is not good enough for Wikipedia. I personally believe that having the article would encourage people to add to it. Deleting it would make sure nobody ever would. As for your claim, for a very common surname, Fjordman appears in all the top hits on Google in both English and Norwegian. I did not check Danish and Swedish.

As for being insulting - try talking before express deleting and people might be a bit more civil. I was under the impression until now that that was Wikipedia policy. I guess I was wrong. Misheu 18:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please point out the particular policy you suggest I have violated, and please be specific about what passage. Mackan 19:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The "fact" that he "affects how millions of people think about Islam" does certainly make him notable - but you need reliable sources stating he does this. Mackan 19:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm suggesting you are being uncivil. I am sorry you feel insulted by what I wrote, but that does not make what you write more civil. I am insulted by your actions. If you want people to write more you do not put an "express delete" notice. I do not have "reputable sources" about Fjordman, I only have reputable sources publishing his articles. He was never interviewed by anybody. However, his blog and his writings are widely quoted (and where do I find a source that says that? it is simply a fact). That is one good reason to have a wikipedia article about him. I do have many, many blogs who quote him. Do you want me to start listing references to his works? Btw, if you google search for Fjordman in Norwegian, Swedish or Danish you will see references to him on debate forums, without any links to his blog. He is a known phenomena Misheu 19:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Please_do_not_take_it_personally. There is nothing incivil in nominating an article for speedy deletion. Mackan 21:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

and there is nothing uncivil about pointing out that the IP you were using was busy speedy deleting things and did not make any significant contribution to wikipedia. I don't know why you got insulted by it. I'm glad that you know all the wiki guidelines by heart. By me, being civil means voicing an opinion before rushing to delete, and not doing it hiding behind an IP.

but, ok, since you want to dicuss policy. I read the speedy delete criteria. I do not agree with you that this article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". The article does assert the importance. You don't want to accept it, but that's not part of the speedy deletion criteria.

Please note the following:

Non-notable subjects with their importance asserted: Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". If the article gives a claim that might be construed as making the subject notable, it should be taken to a wider forum. However, articles with only a statement like "This guy was like so friggin' notable!" can be deleted per CSD A1 because it gives no context about the subject.

In other words, you do not stand up to the criteria needed. But thank you for giving me an insight into wiki legality. Misheu 22:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, enough with the incivility and sarcasm already..! "Hiding behind an IP"? Using an IP is far more revealing than using some random username, such as Misheu, and if you edit with an IP, you can expect to have the most basic of edits questioned, and sometimes abusively so, because many less experienced editors seem to think it's OK as long as it's "only IP's". Well, FYI it isn't, "comment on content, not on the contributor" WP:NPA. The "has a million hits" figure, that one you just basically pulled out of thin air in an attempt to save the article, after I nominated it, where's the source for that? I'm not sure whether such a desperate attempt to keep the article will disqualify the speedy deletion reqest, but that's up to the reviewing admin to decide, not me. Mackan 22:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing incivil about nominating an article for deletion, and editors are under no obligation to provide sources if they did their good faith best to find them, and couldn't. I agree that this article doesn't assert notability, and the attacks on other users are really incivil. I suggest that everyone just be cool and relax. --Haemo 04:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The "original" article, before I started adding more and more based on our conversation said:

His articles and claims are widely quoted around the blogosphere.

I know it's short, but that's it. That is the reason this article has value. I continue to stand behind it.

I'm a pretty new wikiped, and all i know is that this message popped up saying this article is going to be deleted. I now realize (i think.. no sarcasm intended) - that you are not responsible for deleting? You just put this label and somebody else will decide on the topic? I was not aware that it won't be deleted by you two minutes later just because you want to. As it happens, I also edit in other wikipedias in which such things (deletion because somebody doesn't 'like' hte topic) are quite common and tend to happen within minutes. I'm therefore extremely touchy on getting a "fair trial". I do not mind that this article will stand scrutiny and be deleted. I do mind that it will be deleted by somebody who has a personal issue on the topic. The only way I can judge such things, is by looking up the user contribution and seeing whether other such articles are deleted by them regularly, etc.

Add to that that two articles on the same issue (fjordman and Brussels Journal, which are two well known european blogs critical of Islam - got your speedy delete notice at exactly the same time, and I jumped to the conclusion that you were not looking at what the article said (ie, why it's important), but rather what the article was about (ie, the blog). I apologize for jumping to conclusions, but I hope you see why.

Back to the point - this figure comes from his page. I'll fix the article so it says that.

And please, after asking me not to be sarcastic, and pointing out I was uncivil - why speak about "desperate" attempts? Please, assume others don't know better and try to lead by example. Being legal does not mean being civil. I apologize for my original response, and I ask - please let's discuss the article, as you say.

In a way, I am thankful for your notice, since it did cause me to try and think of reasons to prove my point, which I admit I found hard. Fjordman is an independent blogger who was never interviewed and his articles are not carried by major newspapers. His claims sometimes have no factual basis. However, he is extremely popular and what he writes is rewritten so many times, that it becomes facts. As I said, I'm a researcher in the field of Islam and every time I look something on the web, I run across Fjordman's blog.

As for IP. I'm willing to admit an IP gives more info. Except that you don't agree with the info it gave me (that you work only on deleting things) and so I'm really at a loss as to what you wanted me to do.

Again, please assume that others might be newbies, and might have no idea why you want to speedy delete. Especially since I think you do not fulfill what wikipedia calls the narrow criteria for such deletions (on both blog entries you chose to delete). Misheu 04:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the same editor - however, you should note that both of your claims are not to notability. Simply claiming "this person's ideas are talked about a lot on blogs" or "this website gets lots of hits" are not necessarily claims to notability. Basically, the idea is that you have to give some specific claims of where, or how, this topic is being noticed, or important - i.e. they have to talk about the subject, not just his ideas or claims. It's a subtle difference, but it's there. I'm sure you can do that - try trawling through some of the blogs which mention him; I'm sure you'd be able to find a couple of comments or reliable sources there. --Haemo 04:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, my comment was to the original editor who posted the delete notice. Thank you for your suggestions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Misheu (talk • contribs) 05:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 - "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources".83.233.154.50 08:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So by default anybody who's well known in the blogosphere is outside of wikipedia material? Misheu 08:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I quoted a WP policy, if you have any questions about it, please see the policy page. Mackan 09:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The source does not come to show that Fjordman is an expert. It comes to show that he's thought of as an expert. The quote comes from a well known person (Robert Spencer), who does fit within the policy. Also, in this case, "it is relevant to their notability" Misheu 10:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

At this point the article does make claims for the significance of its subject, so the claimed criteria for speedy deletion is not met. Andyvphil 14:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nominated for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fjordman

I nominated this article for deletion. Mackan 08:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. by going around and removing references to his blog you're just proving my point, though. I prefer people have a way to know who they're quoting. Misheu 08:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, proving my point. I do not quote Fjordman on Wikipedia, but many other people did and do. Misheu 10:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed one reference to Fjordman, from Tensta, because it was wholly inappropriate and blogs are not WP:RS. Mackan 10:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is it inappropriate? I think it illustrates the situation there quite nicely. Doing a bit more digging, I found the original, so it seems the translation was accurate after all. Misheu 11:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I find the entire "blogs are not reliable sources" argument weak. The WP:RS "definition" is weak itself. So, the NYT is "reliable"? The Weekly Standard is "reliable"? Fjordman is an author, of substantial note. His wikipedia entry is merely a marker...recording his existence and referencing his work...not establising or destroying the credibility of his work.User:gtiness

The definition of 'reliable' has to be somewhat subjective. But it's particularly important in biographical articles that the sources are reliable to avoid defamation based on spurious claims; that doesn't seem to apply in this case, and from what I've read I'd agree that he's probably a notable blogger, but I'm not aware of any reliable sources on the person in question which would allow us to create a verifiable article. IMHO that's the real issue here, not notability or politics... if you can find reliable sources of biographical information then I'm sure you'll be able to convince people that the article should stay. Mark Grant 17:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

since you're talking about somebody who works under a pseudonym and keeps his private life private, i doubt you'll find anything. That doesn't negate the fact that his opinions are widely quoted. this is what makes him notable and a subject for a wikipedia article. Misheu 21:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I too understand the difficulty the current framework places wikipedia in. I think fjordman highlights a tension between traditional concepts of "the author" and newer concepts of "the author". I'd simply urge regular participants (editors, authorities) to find a way to "fit him in". The best biographical information I can find on him is here (but, it's another blog!): http://kleinverzet.blogspot.com/2006/02/fjordman-files.html[1] User:gtiness