Talk:Audun Lysbakken

Coatrack

I believe that in its current state, this article has serious problems relating to WP:COATRACK. The "controversies" section is bloated to the point that it makes up almost half of the entire section. Almost any politician will have encountered some controversies. I am going to make a suggestion to how this can be done right away. Best regards, benjamil (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I've made substantial edits on the article and removed two subsections from the Controversies section. Although this section is still disproportionate, I don't have time for any more work right now, and it might be better to expand other parts of the article in order to achieve balance, as the subsection on the self defense case probably needs to be about the current size in order to explain the case properly. Does anyone have any input? --benjamil (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

COI

The reason I put the tag up is because the main contributor, Benjamil, who on his userpage lists his real name as Benjamin Endre Larsen, apparently is a politician for Lysbakken's party, and is even a local organiser for the party. [1] [2]. Zaminamina (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Right. He is a local politician for SV and probably involved with the party in different ways. His dayjob appears to be outside politics. What I wonder though, do you have any "specific issues that are actionable within the content policies" that you want to address ? As I understand, "once these are addressed the COI tag should be removed" from the article. He mentions above that he has removed some stuff from the controversy section, something that might in many cases have been questionable. But I am not not sure it is in this case, as I tend to agree with him that the controversy section of this BLP article is still too dominant. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Benjamil has primarily and heavily edited the sections on controversies, far left past, etc. I find this to be questionable considering that he is a politician for Lysbakken's party. Zaminamina (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)r

But what specifically is your problem with the article, as it now is? I don´t think it is enough to just point out that it may have been unfortunate that this user edited the page. As for me, at first glance, I don´t see a major article with the article or how the controversy and far left section is written; and the one problem I do see is mostly the one benjamil identified: that the article has undue weight to controversies and stuff that can be perceived as negative. Even if benjamil may have been biased towards Lysbakken, other editors to the page appears to have focused much on controversies. Iselilja (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

He has removed sections that are critical of Lysbakken, and added text in favor of him. [3] Zaminamina (talk) 09:17, 25

February 2013 (UTC)

I don´t have a problem with that edit, though. Particularly because this is a Biography of Living Person, where we are to be very careful about criminal allegations. I also think you should put up a notice of this discussion on his talk page. Iselilja (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, it is correct that I'm a member of Lysbakken's party. And yes, I have edited the article to put him in a more favorable light, or to put it more precisely - tone down what I have perceived to be the undue weight given to controversies. That being said, I've tried to maintain balance. In the edit noted above, for instance, I haven't removed the allegations, but balanced them with quotes by other experts, as the allegations were controversial. I believe that in doing so I've been upholding WP:BALANCE. My approach to this article has been the same as for any other article, and I believe that I have put the interests of the encyclopedia first. Please note that I have not attempted to delete any negative information outright. I have a working knowledge of Wikipedia:Criticism#.22Criticism.22_section.

I don't have any problems discussing this further. For the record, I also have no problem with this being pointed out, and would like to remark on the fact that it was only possible to point out on account of me editing under my full name. I am doing that because I have consciously chosen to do so, among other things to allow people to scrutinise my editing. Thanks for notifying me.

Best regards, benjamil ^talk/_edits 13:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Having reviewed WP:COI, I can't really see what the issue would be. I don't edit Wikipedia on behalf of the party that I'm a member of (payed editing), and I do not believe that I fall into any of the other categories listed. One could of course argue that I'm likely to be involved in Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Biased_editing, but as the guideline notes, that's something quite different. Cheers, benjamil ^talk/_edits 13:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You just admitted to an action that is frowned upon here, tendentious editing. Many politicians have dedicated criticism sections in their articles, and considering the degree of criticism Lysbakken has received, at least a small blanket section on criticism would be appropriate in this article. I would kindly ask you to refrain from editing this and other articles on SV in the future for the sake of WP. Zaminamina (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, although the request is politely made, I won't accept that outcome yet. On the contrary, I would argue that my editing hasn't been tendentious, because the article was biased in the first place. Based on this, and seeing that Zaminamina is not content with my disclosure, I would like to point out that in my opinion, Zaminamina has also engaged in what may be seen as tendentious editing, his or her only interest in the article appears to have been negative quotes [4][5] which conspicuously align with his or her explicit disdain for left-of-social democracy dislike of marxism and far-left politics, as documented on his/her user page (later removed, available here: [6].

As I expect that we agree that a mudslinging contest is undesirable, I suggest two alternative ways to proceed: Either we continue this discussion here, try to sort out our differences, and in the future agree to approach editing this and other articles where we have antipathies or sympathies regarding the subjects at hand in an as-balanced-as-possible manner, accept well-founded criticism from our peers, and generally behave well, or we request suitable third party intervention, such as WP:RFC. Before doing the latter, I would be very happy if we could try to define on which specific points we disagree, in order to avoid this becoming an issue regarding my personal beliefs, which I don't believe is going to be very productive (of course, if you insist on making this a personal issue and enforcing a topic ban - which I, as mentioned, will not take upon myself at this point - you should take it to WP:ANI, where I honestly don't believe it will get much traction).

Before choosing how you would like to proceed, please consider the following: Although I have great respect for the reasoning behind allowing anonymous authorship of Wikipedia, I generally believe that transparency is extremely important, and I believe that anonymity is one of the main reasons for some of Wikipedia's greatest challenges (such as edit warring, occasionally extreme bias and the lack of stability in articles on controversial subjects). My choice to reveal my real name is one that I have taken partly in order to put greater pressure on myself to behave correctly. If people are to be discouraged from editing articles that they have an emotional attachment to (construed in the widest sense), while striving to uphold the community's standards, it will be very difficult for Wikipedia to recruit editors. Wonderful as such a vision may be, I believe that it is completely unrealistic to expect that there are very many editors who will give attention to articles with political subjects, unless they have an interest in politics themselves. Such an interest rarely comes without a flavour. Everyone is biased to some degree, and as long as people agree to the policy guidelines of the encyclopedia and engage in reasonable discussions when disagreements arise, those biases should ideally cancel each other out. I have actually mainly edited articles where editors with sharply opposed worldviews engage, and I have had concerns that my bias has come through too strongly. On those grounds, I requested an editor review, the results of which can be read here.

If you choose to continue our discussion here, I would like to point out what the article looked like when I first got involved in editing it: [7] This is a classical case of WP:COATRACK. When it comes to the concrete matter of a criticism section, I would once again like to point to Wikipedia:Criticism#.22Criticism.22_section and also WP:BLPSTYLE, which in my opinion make it quite clear that such a section is generally not a good idea in a biography of a living person. Well-written articles generally don't have it. Figures as controversial as George W. Bush and Barack Obama don't have such a section in their articles, and neither does the article on Lysbakken's Norwegian political opposite, Siv Jensen. Other than that, I'm quite aware of WP:OWN, and personally a fan of WP:BRD, so feel free to correct any bias that you believe to be present.

Best regards, benjamil ^talk/_edits 13:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. All I really want is to include a paragraph/sentence about Spetalen's views on Lysbakken, which have been thoroughly covered in the press [8]. The comment you made about my "disdain" for "left-of social democratic political movements" is not far off from being a personal attack and you should be happy that I am ignoring it. Zaminamina (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I've had a go, and I've also revised my previous wording. Do you think that the current version covers this appropriately? benjamil ^talk/_edits 21:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Audun Lysbakken. 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/20120413114341/http://www.abcnyheter.no:80/nyheter/2012/03/05/lysbakken-gar-av to http://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/2012/03/05/lysbakken-gar-av
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120108031943/http://www.klassekampen.no/59726/article/item to http://www.klassekampen.no/59726/article/item
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130314183555/http://politisk.tv2.no/nyheter/heikki-holmas-hadde-jeg-v%C3%A6rt-delegat-hadde-jeg-stemt-pa-audun/ to http://politisk.tv2.no/nyheter/heikki-holmas-hadde-jeg-v%C3%A6rt-delegat-hadde-jeg-stemt-pa-audun/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121009012554/http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/politikk/article3330503.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/politikk/article3330503.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011141410/http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/04/27/nyheter/innenriks/demokrati/politikk/5935216/ to http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/04/27/nyheter/innenriks/demokrati/politikk/5935216/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)