Jump to content

Talk:Jens Stoltenberg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 195.0.176.100 (talk) at 18:39, 13 February 2012 (→‎How does one add things?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Movie: Oljeberget

Would anyone care to add that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.213.211.171 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Political background

Some information on his political standpoint and policies he has supported would make this a fuller article. Marking as a stub. Mr. Jones 09:47, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism and media attention

This article DID contain serious flaws. Stoltenberg haver never been in jail for pedophily!

This article made the front page in one of Norway's biggest papers, Dagbladet, when it seemed to contain serious flaws, like stating that Norway's prime minister has done time for pedophily... [1]

Has this revision been deleted from the history? I could not find it. The article really scandalizes the edit, trying to get comments from Stoltenberg himself, from the IT admin responsible for the IP address used (it was allegedly the work of school kids), and also an apology from a spokesperson from the Norwegian Wikipedia. I wonder how long the allegations were in the article? As far as I understood, the vandalism was quite poorly worded ("pedophilia" is not something you get put in jail for, child molestation is), so I can't imagine anyone would take it seriously. Dagbladet often links to Wikipedia articles, and I've never seen them complain about it like this before, but hey, they're tabloid, and any scandal will do. Haakon 09:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, it got national television (NRK). -- Drange
Try checking the first few edits in the history, it's at the very bottom of the page in one of them. -- Charm Quark?? 12:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jens_Stoltenberg&oldid=31040943 -- Charm Quark?? 20:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the end, the article states: "He is generally considered a good guy". Is this statement suitable for a biographical article in Wikipedia? Hardly neutral point of view... I think I'll remove it. Prytz 07:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The revision was out for less than 24 hours. VG, which is even more of a tabloid than Dagbladet, "scandalized" it, saying that "untill recently, readers could read about Stoltenberg being a convicted paedophiliac…" (my emboldment). This is totally wrong. Stupid newspaper. Jon Harald Søby \ no na 09:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than "less than 24 hours" I would say "more than 22 hours", which is very bad. Or perhaps I shouldn't complain since he was not on my watch list... Now, most of the Norwegian politicians have been added to my list. --Eddi (Talk) 18:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid indeed. They claim the article is now "removed", and that "if an article is vandalized often, the most objective version is chosen and the article is then locked for further editing". Haakon 09:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have watchlisted this article, it seems to be under attack from quite many now, and I fear that the newspaper attention might encourage some copycat vandalism. :-( Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of vandalism going on at this page. Should we request it for page protection? Bogfjellmo 14:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, this article is getting so much attention that we are reverting the vandalism quite quickly, so a page protection is probably not in order just yet. But I noticed that a vandalism to Kjell Magne Bondevik was left unnoticed for more than an hour, so I have watchlisted that one as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, it has been hit by another onslaught of vandalism, so I have protected it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How long will it stay protected? Many have this article in our watchlists, which we reload compulsively. Any vandalism is sure to be shortlived. Haakon 11:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I think the vandalism to this article will slow down now as well, I'm lifting the protection now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

For the record, the pedophilia line was added by 139.164.130.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) at 11:47, 9 November 2005, [2] and removed at 10:16, 10 November 2005 [3], with the other vandalism by that IP removed shortly after. The IP also vandalised Red-Green Coalition (Norway) [4], which was removed in about 1.5hrs [5] - better than the 22.5hrs it took here. I've also watchlisted the article. Rd232 talk 10:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ha, I miscounted the time it was up (someone just corrected it). In my defence, I was distracted because I was supposed to be working... Rd232 talk 19:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some anonymous person 83.108.41.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) posted an apology on the discussion page for the article in norwegian WP. no:Diskusjon:Jens Stoltenberg. --ZorroIII 19:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how credible the apology is from a completely different address. --Eddi (Talk) 04:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think he plays computergames from his office

Vandalism recounted

The bolded entries are those that seem a bit more sinister or hateful. Entries marked with an asterisk (*) aren't really vandalism but inappropriate entries such as unsourced claims and opinions. __meco (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

No sources are given in the article, and so the anon's addition of {{unsourced}} is quite valid. Since this has become such a disputed article, I suggest we add a section with a list of sources, and all non-trivial information should refer to at least one source. --Eddi (Talk) 15:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are always good, but the anon's addition of {{unsourced}} was plainly designed solely to avoid rapid reversion of an edit that had an edit summary abusing an editor. I therefore reverted it anyway, but have no objection to adding the tag in principle. Rd232 talk 17:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch info

Why is there monarch info in his infobox? __meco (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ankylosing spondylitis

Information about Stoltenberg's suffering a mild form of Ankylosing spondylitis[6] has previously been removed. I suggest this item is notable for inclusion in the article. __meco (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bilderberg meeting not exceptionally notable

I'm sure Mr. Stoltenberg attends many international meetings with many organizations. This particular meeting is not in itself very notable or unusual. I know that these meetings are of interest to conpiracy theorist, but this page ought not to favor that particular point of view. Paxuniv (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AUF membership scandal

Should there be some mention of the AUF membership scandal in this article? Perhaps a link in the See also section? __meco (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rumours about sexuality causing media attention

A frequent theme of this article's plethora of vandalisms notwithstanding, the topic of Jens Stoltenberg's sexuality has also surfaced in Norwegian mainstream media if my recall serves me correctly. I have only a very vague time reference, it may be as far back as the 1980s, but I remember having listened to a live phone interview on what I believe was NRK Østlandssendingen were the journalist brought up circulating rumours that Stoltenberg was gay. I don't remember his response except that I found it quite frantic and overreacting. If others have some recollection of this episode or the media context perhaps an accurate time frame can facilitate recovering any references. The rationale for having the article mention such an issue would obviously be the susceptibility to undue influences which a person in high office would suffer if he or she were having personal secrets that they feared would come to public attention. __meco (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. This user should be banned for personal harassment. Flums (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I heard is not true? You mean to state that I am making up this in order to smear Jens Stoltenberg? May I ask you how you can assert such a position? __meco (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard nothing whatsoever about this. If it's so vague that you cannot produce a reference it should not be in the article, and especially not in a living person's biography. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noone has suggested that. Obviously, the reason I present this is an attempt to arouse the recollection of others who could elaborate on the my meager memories. As I see it, the challenge is primarily to center in on a date. Then the sources would be more easily found. __meco (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why should his sexuality be mentioned, this is not a gossip magazine okay...... --This Feels Right (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight

Seeing how this article is currently linked from the Main Page, it's in a horribly poor state. The AUF membership scandal, which was a minor episode in Stoltenberg's political career, takes up half the article, in clear violation of WP:UNDUE. His first cabinet is covered, but this section is almost entirely about the transfer of power. His second cabinet is hardly covered at all. I'll put up an "undue" tag, though perhaps it's better to wait until it's off the Main Page. Lampman (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this could be worked on by expanding the other sections, rather than removing that one? I notice that political scandals and criticism often receive significant attention, for example in the case of Mette Hanekamhaug. 158.143.136.183 (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steklov

Maybe mention somewhere that he uses (used?) the nick Steklov when playing games, and that the reason is that KGB once used that as a code name for him? I'm not familiar with the rules regarding editing the article, so I add the information here instead. :)

Sources:

Disputed section about hit and run incident

The section about Stoltenberg crashing with a parked car and then leaving the scene without giving any notice to the owner of the damaged car, was removed by EPadmirateur with the following explanation: " rv per WP:UNDUE: discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.)" The information was originally entered into the article by 77.18.14.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) without any references, then promptly removed for that reason, then readded and re-written by me to remove some inaccuracies/hyperbole after I had dug up a reliable source for the incident.

I suggest that information about criminal and unethical behavior by a top-level politician is not a trivial matter and that it is much more relevant to the biography of such an individual than in the case of for instance a movie actor. These are people whose entire careers and activities hinge on the trust given to them by the voting population. When they show to behave reprehensibly, even in a non-political context, and when that has been discussed prominently in mainstream media, we would simply be amiss in doing our job of writing an encyclopedia if we did not allow such information to come to the surface. I am therefore readding this section, adding additional sources to the story.

I should also address the use of WP:UNDUE to support the removal of this text because that is really quite a stretch. In fact, the quote provided by EPadmirateur is the only segment of text in the section Due and undue weight of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy page which could at all be invoked to address the current issue, as all the rest of the discussion there is focussed on to what extent a minority opinion contra the majority opinion is to be presented in an article about a topic. And the quote in no way supports removal or suppression of any information. All it does is point out that certain angles may be "disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". Should we then also remove the information about his sister being a recovering heroin addict? Or that he has admitted to having smoked cannabis? Or that he has two children? Or, perhaps not the last since that couldn't be seen to paint Stoltenberg in a not so flattering light...

I think it is fine that editors keep a vigilant eye out against slander, rumour-mongering and BLP violations, but I do not think it is fine when we take on the role as apologetics and spin doctors. That can sometimes, at least for some, prove to be a fine line to thread. And I'm not reproaching EPadmirateur here, but I am insisting that this incident is noteworthy in the biographical article about the highest elected public servant of a country. __meco (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful photograph

This photograph of an adolescent Jens Stoltenberg (I assume it's authentic) has been attempted added to the article on at least a couple of occasions. I think it is quite charming/amusing. It's unlikely that it has the right licensing for our use, and some would likely object to its inclusion in any case, but I would be amicably inclined towards having it in the article if the rights could be sorted out properly. __meco (talk) 09:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stone throwing incident

I'd appreciate if others who read Norwegian and have access could check out the reference for this and make comment on the reliability on this source and the author specifically. Stoltenberg must have been 13 or 14 years old at the time, so it's more piquant than discrediting, I suppose, but nevertheless. __meco (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this vandalism?

I have added some new images. That's all. Why is this vandalism?? Even though you are an administrator/moderator, you have no such rights. Please explain why you deleted it. You are the one who destroys this article by deleting other peoples edits. Shame on you! --HAAVE 11:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The images had low encyclopedic value and did not fit inside the article. Full stop. --Eisfbnore talk 12:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The pictures posted recently by HAAVE are perfectly valid for an encyclopedia. It appears that your alternative choices of pictures have a particular point of view that seem to violate WP:BLP by putting Stoltenberg in a deliberately negative light. Would you care to justify your choices of pictures for this article? And also why these other choices are not encyclopedic? In the meantime, I suggest that you stop edit warring about this. Thanks, EPadmirateur (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Before you start tossing accusations around about my POV and similar, I would like you to please tell what is so great about these close-up pictures. --Eisfbnore ðç 07:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another image which could be used is File:Jens Stoltenberg.jpg, which is a featured image on Commons, and has even been picture of the day there. Irrespective of the quality of the images, the captions for some of the removed images were quite problematic: this is the English language Wikipedia, please do not use terms like "statsministeren" and "statsråder" as they are Norwegian and have English equivalents. Arsenikk (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eisfbnore, the pictures that HAAVE added are better because they show Stoltenberg in a positive or neutral light. The File:Jens Stoltenberg of Norway.jpg is much better than the current one in the lead, File:Prime Minister Stoltenberg Jens.jpg, because Stoltenberg is not frowning. In addition, there is no background clutter of people as if the picture is just a snapshot. What is your problem with HAAVE's suggestion?

I agree with Arsenikk that File:Jens Stoltenberg.jpg is better still and should be the photo in the lead. (I also agree that the captions to the pictures should be in English, which is easy to fix.) Can we first agree on the photo for the lead? My vote is for File:Jens Stoltenberg.jpg, second choice is File:Jens Stoltenberg of Norway.jpg. Thanks, --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed there is also this one File:Jens Stoltenberg red background.jpg which is also acceptable and preferable to the current photo in the lead. --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then let's try File:Jens Stoltenberg.jpg. What objections do you have to this one? --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer the question in the heading, "Why is this vandalism?", the answer is it is not vandalism, and should not have been termed in that way. None of the images are degrading, nor egregiously biased, and could most certainly used in good faith. Disagreement over which images to use are not vandalism, and people should not use that term lightly. Concerning the main image for the infobox, I have no strong concerns about any of the suggested images. Frowning might make a person look bitter or sour (bad) or concerned and serious (good), but in neither case is this a serious breach of NPOV policy. Regarding the image File:Liv Jens Kristin.jpg, I find that the image has encyclopedic value because it shows the three party leaders of the Red-Green coalition which is crucial to Stoltenberg's current cabinet (but the caption was suboptimal, per Arsenikk). If we were to emphasize history over the contemporary, I would prefer an image with Jens Stoltenberg, Kristin Halvorsen, and Åslaug Haga, since Haga was the SP leader when the coalition was first formed (which was a rather historic event as these parties had never been together in such a coalition before). Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not vandalism, then it's at least disruptive to add close-up, substandard pictures to the infobox like this one and this one ([7][8]). However, File:Jens Stoltenberg.jpg is certainly an appropriate infobox picture, so I think we have reached consensus. :) --Eisfbnore talk 18:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does one add things?

This entry seems to be write-protected. How does one edit it? I would like to add a paragraph about the international warrant for the arrest of Mr. Stoltenberg on grounds of war crimes, crimes against humanity and violation of UNSC resolution No. 1973 as issued by the Norwegian Government-in-Exile in Bangkok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.225.134.57 (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC) What the hell are you talking about?--195.0.176.100 (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saab 93

Was the car which Stoltenberg drove at his parking incident really a Saab 93? I think that it was more likely a Saab 9-3.77.191.1.115 (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but I suppose we can only go with what the sources say. __meco (talk) 08:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A reference has been added (which is a copy of the next reference in the text): "took off in his car, a Saab 9-3[1] leased to "
  1. ^ Hultgreen, Gunnar (December 8, 2001). "Jens varslet ikke eieren". Dagbladet. p. 6. Archived from the original on November 20, 2010. Retrieved November 20, 2010. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
--85.165.231.200 (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to explain this correctly now I believe. __meco (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jens_Stoltenberg&oldid=476690463"