Talk:The Brussels Journal

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 23, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

The Brussels Journal is a blog featuring prominent researchers and bloggers and which serves as one of the only conservative news media in belgium. It not only reports on the news, but makes them, and therefore it is important to have all pertinent information on this blog on Wikipedia. Misheu 10:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

You need me to prove to you that the Brussels Journal is used as a news source on Wikipedia? It's usually a good idea to see "what links to here" before suggesting a speedy delete. I now did a quick search and wikified a few more links. Misheu 11:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense, this is an article about a website and blog who reports on politics of Belgium and the EU. Its readership is large, and it's contributers are internationally known and qualified in their field. The Belgian government has tried a number of times to obstruct further publication of the weblog. It is a topic of dispute in Belgian politics in its own right, because it is one of the very few news sources that offers independant news (and is not directly or indirectly government controlled). It should be kept. Stijn Calle 14:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not notable, I'm saying there needs to be multiple non-trivial second hand sources asserting the article's notability (see Wikipedia:Notability), if it's to be kept, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Instead of acting insulted, you could try and provide such, and thereby vastly improve the article. 83.233.154.50 15:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the fact that Wikipedia uses this blog "as a news source" means absolutely nothing in terms of notability, Wikipedia itself can never be considered a reliable source, see WP:RS. 83.233.154.50 15:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

the fact that Wikipedia uses it as a new source means it is of interest to wikipedia users ot know more about what they're reading. You want to bring this issue up to a vote? Misheu 18:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Instead of threatening to take it to a vote, how about you do something constructive and improve the article with actual sources, as required by Wikipedia guidelines? Mackan 18:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Threatening? I thought this was Wikipedia policy. How about instead of threatening to delete you actually do what Wikipedia requires: read the article and see what links to it. For some reason you're getting insulted, but you could have easily wrote something on the "talk" page instead of putting an "express delete" notice. You call that being civil and constructive? Misheu 18:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Newspapers like De Standaard en De Morgen have mentioned the Brussels Journal. I'm not sure what the fuss is all about here. Intangible2.0 19:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe bring some references? It would prevent future deletion attempts. Misheu 20:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to wonder...why is it that the Dutch language version is much more even handed and the English version reads like it was written by some fawning brat?

Example

In Dutch there's the line "Paul Beliën, die de site oprichtte als alternatief voor de gevestigde Vlaamse media" which translates to Paul Belien, whom started the site as an alternative for the established (news)media in Flanders.

In the version here we get a line "It is a source of news that is independent of Belgian government support."

Which is neither here nor there. Any blog can claim of itself to be an independent non governmentally supported 'news source'.

What about a line such as : "Belien summed up the raison d'être of the European journalists and writers behind The Brussels Journal as restoring the values of freedom, the quest for Knowledge and Truth to the “consensus-culture” of contemporary Europe."

So what. I didn't think the idea of wikipedia is to take over blindly the self declared "rasion d'être" without any caveats. All that line does is try to convey the impression that only those posting there know what the truth is, what true freedom is and what really happens in Europe.

Side note. Using the Brussels Journal to defend the Brussels Journal is beyond the ridiculous. It's like using the bible to proof the bible right. It has no intellectual merit at all.

The one big difference that I see with the Dutch languaged version is that here Stijn Calle (whom is clearly a big fan of Paul Belien, Brussels Journal and Vlaams Blok/Belang) has been permitted to keep stating his admiration. So much so that one can hardly take anything serious by him about any of these subjects. Bumbleb123 21:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the big difference in saying "the blog was set up to be an alternative" (who said?) and "the blog is independent". Why do you think one is more fawning than the other? In general this article brings quotes, while the Dutch version doesn't. For that matter, the Dutch version doesn't bring references either. I suggest if you feel this is too one sided, edit it. As for Belien's own opinion of his blog, I think it says something about the blog's aims, and is not used to "defend itself". It might be better, though, if this part is kept, to put it under its own headings, such as "blog goals". Something else which should be added is the connection to Vlaams Belang. Misheu 14:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)