Talk:Beate Eriksen/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

3 millionth article

Note that this was determined to be Wikipedia's 3 millionth article. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(The English version's anyway) Smartse (talk) 04:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations!--Cubs197 (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll say it -- it'd be pretty funny if this article got AfD'd. --Bcjordan (talk) 04:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
In that case, we go to the 3,000,001st article, or the 3,000,002nd article.
The 2 millionth article went up for afd, I wouldn't be surprising it this one went up -- Coasttocoast (talk) 05:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(X! · talk)  · @234  ·  04:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Woohoo! Finally, after nearly one year, we have another million. –CG 04:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it is after nearly two years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.179.54 (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
And in honor of the 3,000,000th, I've created an Old English translation on the Anglo-Saxon Wikipedia, which can be seen . :) —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 04:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this going to be DYKed? Norwegian DYKs have a bit of a cult following or so they say... --candle•wicke 04:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Happy 3,000,000th Article Wikipedia!!!!! (I think im going to just go for the 10,000,000th Article lol) P.S: is anyone protecting this against vandalism? Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Progress! This article was not immediatly put up for deletion like number 2 million was. yeah! I hope that is a good omen. Ikip (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Quick, someone be bold and AFD it! :P --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Awsome!!! It mush have done it overnite. COOL!Parker1297 (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Cool! I have a question...what were the millionth and two millionth articles? Jeremy (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Jordanhill railway station and El Hormiguero. Jafeluv (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Cool, thank you! Jeremy (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Joe Connor is the 2.5 millionth. Can someone add that to the milestone template above? Savager (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Oh and the 500,000th is Forced settlements in the Soviet Union Savager (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

checkY Done Article 500k has been added. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Expansion

As the creator I'm humbled. I've gathered a few resources for expansion and further sourcing of the article (all in Norwegian). Personally I have to go to bed now...

http://www.akershusteater.no/sider/om/skuespillere/beatee.html
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2001/06/12/263222.html
http://www.dagbladet.no/tekstarkiv/artikkel.php?id=5001000004778
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article1013669.ece
http://www.vg.no/rampelys/artikkel.php?artid=9937673
http://www.40pluss.no/index.php/kjendis/40-paret-i-skogen
Lampman (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.dn.no/d2/mote/article1554968.ece
http://www.filmfront.no/actor/36075/Beate+Eriksen
Lampman (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia section removed

There is a reliable source noting that this article is the 3 millionth article in the english wikipedia. Is there some compelling reason this fact shouldn't be in the article? Protonk (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It isn't important to a readers understanding of the subject and only deals with something that an insider of Wikipedia would be aware of, hence talk pages. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 07:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Clearly someone disagrees with you. Protonk (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
There were similar discussions at Talk:Jordanhill railway station and Talk:El Hormiguero, the talk pages for the 1,000,000th and 2,000,000th articles. I believe the common practice is to mention any such press coverage in a banner on the talk page. tktktk 08:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:No self-references --Closedmouth (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Ignore all rules. Wocka-wocka-wocka! ;-) --Bobak (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:What "Ignore all rules" means--XO^10 (talk) 10:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It isn't just about self-references, it is about relevance. Whether the event of Wikipedia's 3,0000 article is notable is debatable, but in any case, the fact that "the Wikipedia article on Beate Eriksen" achieved this milestone, tells the reader nothing about "Beate Eriksen". IF third-party sources started to write about the 3,000,000 article, then that information would go in the article on Wikipedia and not in this article, unless the event of the 3,000,0000 article starts to have some impact on public discussion about Beate Eriksen. That's unlikely unless Beate Eriksen comments on it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok to say something about it here on the talk page as has already happened but as Scott says, this has nothing to do with the topic and doesn't belong in the article. For those who want to gush, I guess a little template thingy at the bottom of the article (or at the top of this talk page) would be ok but truly, it's not needed. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course this is notable. Any notion of self-references aside, when the global media focuses on it there is no reason for us to present ourselves with faux modesty. __meco (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not faux-modesty, it's due weight. We're happy to write about Wikipedia when it's directly relevant to the subject: Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger, John Seigenthaler. In this case, sources about the subject itself mention the subject's relation to Wikipedia. In Beate Eriksen's case, that hasn't happened. It may happen in the future, but currently the reliable sources that we have about the actress's life and career don't mention Wikipedia. The only sources that mention the article are about the article and not about the actress. —Noisalt (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a circular reference as a claim to notability and thus unsuitable for this article. As it stands, the article doesn't have enough reliable sources to substantiate notability. There's just an IMDB listing and a self-published bio from what appears to be a community theatre website. Chuthya (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC) ...and the second reference is an article about a sweater pattern where the subject receives passing notice as a grandmother. Chuthya (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I would only consider mentioning it in the article if, say, the Norwegian government declared today a national holiday in honor of Beate being the subject of the 3 millionth WP article. almost anything short of that breaks my unofficial, unacknowledged (at least i havent found a place where this is mentioned) "dont break the fourth wall rule, which is a variant on circular reference, ie no self referencing in articles. lists that say IN THE HEADER "this is a list of xxx with WP articles" Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
If the rule you are thinking of is unofficial and unacknowledged, then it probably isn't much of a rule. We have SELFREF for a very good reason, namely wikipedia writers like to write about themselves. they like to include arcana (or maybe it doesn't seem like arcana to them) about wikipedia in article space because that's what gets read (keeping in mind that only part of SELFREF is devoted to avoiding mentioning wikipedia, the rest talk about avoiding phrases like "click this link" which has been web style since before I started surfing). What that style guideline is not is a prohibition on all things wikipedia. It is not an artificial bar raised around wikipedia related issues with regard to sourcing. If reliable sources cover an event and it happens to be on wikipedia, then who are we to stand in the way? Protonk (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As for the 'no self reference bit', that's a style guideline whose primary goal is to allow the encyclopedia to be repurposed under any format or function without needing to change text. It isn't a prohibition against mentioning the wikipedia article should sourcing allow. I didn't add in the comment because I felt like commemorating the page, I added the comment because a reliable source noticed the intersection. Now there are at least two more. How many sources need to mention this before it gets noted in the article, I wonder? Protonk (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I find the knee-jerk naysaying mostly curious as it is strikingly obvious that Beate Eriksen has received many times the media exposure today than in her entire previous career. Several of the news articles give descriptions of her, based on the information given in the present article, way beyond simply mentioning her in passing as the topic of the 3 millionth English Wikipedia article. __meco (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
If the major reason why she's notable is that she has an article in Wikipedia, and there are few other claims to notablility outside of a listing in a user edited online directory and a self-published bio on a community theatre website, then certainly she's not notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Chuthya (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
We're not discussing notability for the article. __meco (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
If this is kind of a hint that you are thinking about sending the article to AfD. Don't. If it doesn't' have press coverage now, wait until it gets sent to AfD. The copy on that writes itself. People will come to defend the article and you will lose. Without a doubt. Protonk (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Just because the article happens to allegedly be the 3 millionth article is not a sufficient reason for an avalance of Keep !votes at AfD. If it were nominated and it were to be kept, then that's an indication that the system is broken. Chuthya (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
You can think what you like about the system. I'm just telling you what is going to happen if you nominate it. Protonk (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
On what policy based reason do you think the article should be kept? What references do you think are going to come that are going to be a reasonable argument to Keep? Chuthya (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Then go ahead and be BOLD! What if this and what if that. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Please don't egg him on. You can't nominate it right now. Protonk (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Even better. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there a point to this argument? I'm not gonna sit here and make justifications to you about the article. My point is that regardless of the justifications, if you AfD this article in the next few weeks, it will be kept and we will look stupid. Nobody outside wikipedia gives a shit about WP:N or WP:V. The copy will read "officious nerds claw back wikipedia's acheivement: article on real person wasn't "notable" while article on pokemanz remain". Apart from the negative press implications (because they will be relatively small, picked up in probably the guardian, /. and ars), the internal stir of nominating this article right now will be enough to keep it. Also, if you nominate it while it's linked from the main page, it will be speedily kept per policy. Protonk (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The subject is clearly notable, as she "Has had significant roles in multiple commercially produced or significant films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." (WP:ENT) She has also "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:N), such as Dagbladet, Verdens Gang, Aftenposten etc. If you put this article up for AfD, it's 100% certain that you will fail. You will succeed in one thing, however: you will make a laughingstock of Wikipedia. The media will have a field day: "Wikipedia creates its 3 millionth article, and now they want to delete it". If that's what you want to do, there is really nothing to stop you. Except for this guideline, that is. Lampman (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That note is a misc. fact and can't be smoothly integrated into the ==Personal life== or ==Career== sections because its bit too tangential. Adding a new section just for this fact would be similar to creating a trivia section, and that trivia too is not directly about the actress's life or work, but about her wikipedia article. —SpaceFlight89 19:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I disagree this edit fits it neatly in there. Regardless, it is covered in a number of sources. At some point we can't ignore that. Protonk (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Whoa! That is an eyesore. I don't see why this needs mentioning on her article. None of the sources concern her more over the fact that wikipedia has reached 3 million articles, the 3 millionth of which happens to be about her. Move this to the Wikipedia article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
        • The number of sources can be pared down. I don't really understand your second complaint. It's not as though a source is going to say anything more than that. She wasn't destined to be the 3 millionth article subject. It isn't something intrinsic to her. But reliable sources have noted the connection and I don't comprehend the resistance toward including a mention of it in this article. Protonk (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Just because there's a reliable source, doesn't mean we have to put a fact into an article. The fact has to belong there in the first place. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
            • Who says it doesn't belong there? you? I agree that there is room for editorial judgment (Not coincidentally, I don't see a problem including it as an editorial matter) but we are constrained by the sources at hand for the content of the article. I won't continue to edit war over it, but I will seek some further outside opinion on the matter if we can't come to some agreement here. All I'm asking for is a single sentence, supported by a dozen references, or a good reason why a dozen references should be ignored. I'm trying hard to see your point of view (that the intersection is trivial and that the focus of the sources is on wikipedia, not her) and I admit that there is a good deal of validity behind it. But I'm not convinced that those two arguments are strong enough to support removing a sentence (rather than deleting an article like Beate Eriksen on Wikipedia or Wikipedia's three millionth article). Protonk (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
            • I also want to take issue point (made explicit in your edit summary) that sources are necessary, but not sufficient for claims made in articles. This is true for most cases, but in some cases, omission of a claim in an article where such a claim is supported by reliable sources and represents a significant fraction of the focus on the subject is an error on our part. Protonk (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Who says it doesn't belong there? you?

(outdent) Every editor has a viewpoint that is equally weighted against one another. You do not own this page or the project, and clearly there was consensus to NOT put it there before it was added on a whim. Its dozen citations have nothing to do with Beate Eriksen's personal life and very few editors are in agreement over it being there. None of the other milestone articles mention anything regarding the milestone outside their talk pages. Again, the sources regard wikipedia's acheivement of reaching three million articles, not Beate Eriksen's acheivement of being the third millionth article. This is more suitable for the Signpost - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Obviously I don't own the article. But 'the consensus on this page keeps it off' is a dramatically weaker argument than the ones advanced above about some sort of editorial first principles. I don't want to sound rude, but I get loud and clear that you think this is a matter for the signpost (or the WP article, or whatever). My point is (and has always been) that your point of view is nice and all, but a dozen people in print and online seem to disagree. Some of those sources mention the subject en passant to Wikipedia at large, some mention the article more than the subject, and some mention the subject alone. The mentions range from trivial/tangential to significant with respect to the source. I'm not trying to insert this connection simply because I feel the 'milestone' is important--it doesn't matter if the 1 millionth or 2 millionth article don't mention their status on article space. I'm mentioning it because some reliable source has. And at the risk of repeating myself, I respectfully think your position is wrong and will seek something up the DR chain to get some more opinions on the subject. Protonk (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I do believe more opinions would best determine this. I don't believe that an article merits information because there is a reliable source for it. Further, the information posted on the refs are essentially either a direct copy, or a reinterpretation of the content of this article, with no more (and, given the edits made today, far less) information than wikipedia/this article already contains. We don't need to reference something that just references right back to here. Does the Microsoft article mention or link to the publication concerning its employees tampering with the wikipedia article? What it comes down to is that the (reliable) sources you want to put on this article are not reliable, because the source for their information is wikipedia itself. This is a circular reference. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Hardly a circular reference. I'm not using those articles to support claims that she is a 48 year old Norwegian actress (tidbits they probably lifted from our article without checking their facts), just to substantiate the claim that her bio received some note as the 3 millionth article. As I say below, those articles by necessity point here. But they don't mirror content on wikipedia, so no feedback loop exists. Protonk (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(Break)

Look, this isn't about self-references. We're not avoiding this fact because we don't want to mention Wikipedia, we're avoiding it because it has nothing to do with Beate Eriksen.

For comparison: Religion is an important aspect of The Simpsons. Sources that discuss The Simpsons frequently discuss religion and its relationship with the show. That's why our article on The Simpsons mentions religion and spins off into a larger discussion of religion on the show. But The Simpsons is not an important aspect of religion, and the article on religion has no mention of The Simpsons, because the vast majority of sources on religion do not mention The Simpsons.

This is the same deal.

  • Reliable sources primarily about this article talk about Beate Eriksen.
  • But no reliable sources primarily about Beate Eriksen talk about this article.

In the future, we may find sources that do, and if there's a clear trend that shows this article is an important aspect of her life, then we can certainly include it. But right now, she is an important aspect of the article, not the other way around. There is not a single reliable source about her that gives non-trivial coverage to this article, and it's our job here to follow suit. Noisalt (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

    • That's a fair argument, with a few flaws. First its obvious that sources talking primarily about eriksen don't talk about the article, the article didn't exist 24 hours ago so any source prior to the 17th necessarily excluded the article. Second, if it was sent up for deletion (and not immediately kept because it is linked from the main page), the sources which would be most convincing in its defense would be the very recent ones about the article itself. See Deletionpedia or Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia for examples where this occured. Obviously those articles are in a different class, both subjects would not exist were it not for wikipedia. Third, the comparison to Simpsons/religion is instructive but somewhat flawed. Both the simpsons and religion are well known (at least among the demographic that edits wikipedia). This person was a virtual unknown outside of Norway until her 15 minutes of fame occurred serendipitously. Likely thousands more people know who eriksen is than did before solely because of the association. But like you said, it doesn't hurt to wait. Protonk (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, being linked as the 3 millionth article would not be a sufficient reason for un-proding the article or a speedy keep argument in AfD. We could easily link the next alleged 3 millionth article. It would be like saying you couldn't prod a hoax article becuase it was listed on the main page in DYK! Chuthya (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You can, but theres a process to doing that beyond slapping a prod tag on the page. Things that are on the front page are dealt with behind the scenes to avoid the general public noticing it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Protonk makes some very good points. I don't know to what extent other editors would consider the Titian article to be a precedent, but it has a section documenting a controversy related to the Wikipedia article, which has met with little objection and which fits okay. Noisalt makes some good points but I think a better (if vaguer) criteria for judging whether it is suitable might be to look at whether it is proportionate or not. Religion obviously covers a huge number of things; The Simpsons is a very minor thing in comparison; most will not have come across religion through watching the show. Arguably the only reason Beate Eriksen is known outside Norway (which is surely a point of interest) is that she was the subject of the 3 millionth Wikipedia article; it seems the only time she's attracted attention worldwide, which, even if she herself receives only cursory attention, I think merits a short mention. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the point that was made. If HER life is altered by this article (And then that is published by a reliable source), then it merits mentioning. The fact that she was the subject of the three millionth article does not. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

New interwiki

Semi protection?

Why has this been semi'ed for 24 hours? There's been useful IP additions and only a few bits of quickly reverted vandalism. This is very high-profile, linked off the mainpage, under the "anyone can edit" tag. Like a FA it should only be semi-protected as a last resort and for no more than an hour or so at a time. At the moment the low level vandalism is easily reverted.

Are we a wiki, or what?--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I count 2 bits of IP vandalism, and as many useful contributions.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Talk to the admin. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
He did and I lifted the s-prot. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Not sure if it's been done already, but this article should be nominated for DYK. I was thinking something along the lines of:

Did you know... ... that Beate Eriksen, the subject of the English Wikipedia's 3 millionth article, is the daughter of World War II flying ace Marius Eriksen Jr.?


Thoughts/comments/suggestions? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I suggested above that a DYK nomination should be carried out. :D --candle•wicke 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Heh, DYK is A-OK :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed, but I wanted a bit of input on the wording instead of just making the nomination since I didn't create the article, nor heard of Beate Eriksen before today. If nobody objects to this wording then I'll nominate the article on Lampman's behalf. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The hook is self-referential, and should be avoided (see discussion above). In any case, the article is too short for DYK; I count about half of the required 1,500 characters. Lampman (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Only my own thought, but I don't see a DYK on this as being too self-referential, given the article did get some independent coverage for being #3k2. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) True, but given the sources above I'm sure we can puff it up to 1500 characters. Perhaps it is self referenced to wikipedia, but in terms of a DYK might be grounds for WP:IAR as an uncommon exception (esp. since it isn't placed on the article itself). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, the expansion should be done before we start discussing the hook. The sources are unfortunately not as plentiful as one could wish. I doubt a self-referential hook will be accepted though, the DYK on Jordanhill railway station did not mention that it was article number 1 million: "...that in 1998, a study proposed to relocate Jordanhill railway station, a station currently located near the Jordanhill Campus of the University of Strathclyde and the Jordanhill School that opened in 1887?" Lampman (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Some hook suggestions from reading the article as it exists at present:

1) ...that the adoption application of 39-year-old Norwegian actress Beate Eriksen was rejected because her husband was too old?

2) ... that Norwegian actress Beate Eriksen became the first cast member to direct the soap opera Hotel Cæsar?

3) ... that Norwegian actress Beate Eriksen is the granddaughter of Olympic gymnast Marius Eriksen, and daughter of World War II flying ace Marius Eriksen, Jr.?

Just in case one is needed. Not verified with the sources or checked for length or anything. I like the first one best if it is true. --candle•wicke 21:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on the first one; we should be careful about too much tabloidy digging in people's private lives, particularly on the Main Page. I like 3 best, or how about:
...that both the grandfather and the uncle of Norwegian actress Beate Eriksen were Olympic medalists?
By the way, I've expanded the article to where it now qualifies as a DYK. Lampman (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I like the third. The WWII ace hook seems like it is the most interesting and likely to catch readers attention (In case they miss the big banner at the top). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm nominating it now, as things will be in good DYK stance with the front page banner gone. I'm using the third hook, but if anyone has any objections then feel free to change it or discuss it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Can the producer part in the lead be removed, or a source found for it before it is posted on DYK please? It currently has [citation needed] which I think it would be better if it didn't - I take it that plenty of people have been researching her in the last few days so if it was the case we would have a source by now. Smartse (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Removing now for DYK purposes. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What a connected lady!

Wow! She is the granddaughter of Marius Eriksen, the daughter of Marius Eriksen, Jr, the niece of Stein Eriksen, and is married to Toralv Maurstad! And now she's the subject of Wikipedia's 3-millionth page. Congratz! --76.8.78.67 (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This "Family background" is filler fluff that only circumstantially has anything to do with the subject. It should be removed and incorporated into the articles about the subjects it mentioned. Is the whole point of this exercise fluffing up this article so it meets some DYK and alleged notability standard? 69.161.114.35 (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
It is hardly irrelevant in a biographical article to give some details about the historical background of a person with so many notable people among their ancestors, and also, with that level of naming names and credentials, not separating this information from other information would simply serve to clutter the article and diminish readability. __meco (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
It's undue weight to unnecessary information about the subject. It also doesn't reveal anything about her. Having notable people in one's ancestry does not make someone notable. If I could claim that William Wallace is one of my ancestors would that make me notable enough for an article? Chuthya (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
No, but if the topic of your BLP was otherwise taken as encyclopedic on en.Wikipedia, your ancestry and family could easily have some bearing and meaning as background to that notable topic and hence a help to readers if verifiable, noted kin were brought up in the text. Taking this a bit further, if your BLP was already encyclopedic, your claim alone that Wallace was your kin would need to have been published and even then, independent and reliable sources beyond the bare claim could be called for. If this article were ever taken to AfD, her kinships would have no sway at all unless the kinships themselves have been widely noted (such as with the children of US presidents and British royals), which so far as I know hasn't happened here. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
A bit more: As for William Wallace, the further back the kin, the less pith. Most ethnic western Europeans are descendents of Charlemagne, so bringing him up in most bios would likely be meaningless. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
If William Wallace was your father, grandfather or uncle, then it should definitely be included (also, the fact that you'd be 700 years old would make you extremely notable). Apart from that, William Wallace is not really relevant to this discussion. This essay does a good job at explaining the difference between irrelevant genealogical information and relevant family information. I do agree that the biography section is still a bit thin though, so maybe our focus should be on that? Building up instead of tearing down, and all that? Lampman (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable!

How can this obscure article be the 3,000,000th article on Wikipedia?! I demand the Star Wars article be nominated instead, I'm sure there must have been an edit to it around the same time!Jackass110 (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding, right. Ppoi307 (talk) 1:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Your Pokemanz, show them to me. Protonk (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
If this article isn't notable enough, then you should start remove ca 1 million of the articles that are already here and you may celebrate article number 2 million once again. You can't expect that article no. 3 million would be about something that is familiar in the English-speaking world. There's no question in my mind that this person is notable enough by a clear margin.--Ezzex (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Jackass110's joke is no more far-fetched than embracing this un-notable article for being the 3rd millionth. Whose kidding who here?RevelationDirect (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
That would be, "Who's kidding whom here." Gwen Gale (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
You got me! Poor grammar in talk pages should always mean that you disregard the idea of what was being posted.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Nobody. I'm thrilled that something 'real' has been the 1,2 and 3 millionth article. Imagine all the whinging if it were a Simpsons episode or what not. Every gasbag with an op-ed would be rushing to write the world's easiest opinion piece about how new media has sent the world to the dogs. Protonk (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The article is now one of the most notable pages on Wikipedia. The subject may be a different story. ;) –Juliancolton | Talk 01:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wedding date

The article says that the wedding date is "New Year's Eve 1999". Would that be December 31, 1999 or December 31, 1998? I can't find either date in the reference, and I cannot read Norwegian. However whatever (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1999 Lampman (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
A Norwegian article may be "read" by inserting the Web address into Google Translate; Norwegian (bokmål) to English. (Unless it's written in nynorsk, of course.) Nording (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Adoptions in Norway

The article currently reads:

This sentence makes no sense. If it is a rule of the government of Norway, then it would be called in English "Norwegian Law". Otherwise, it would be a rule of the adoption agency in Norway. The word "should" is also meaningless. Should means indicates a preference, as opposed to a requirement. Rules and laws cannot use the word "should" because it is such an open ended word. The sentence seems to be a poor translation from Norwegian. However whatever (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Your take on this (what makes sense to you) may be your own original research. The cited source, as translated from Norwegian, says : The rules say that the adoptive parents should not be older than 45 years when the child comes. They should not be younger than 25, according to VG. (Nor: Reglene sier at adoptivforeldre ikke bør være eldre enn 45 år når barnet kommer. De bør heller ikke være yngre enn 25, ifølge VG.) Wholly as an aside, government agencies indeed often develop rules as a way of carrying out laws. These "rules," along with allowed "bureaucratic discretion," could overlay each other in ways which make should rather than must the more fitting verb. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
You've got to show some flexibility. This is the Google translation. Just because the translation is awkward does not mean that Wikipedia must retain the awkward translation. This seems to be a classic case of WP:IGNORE. However whatever (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Not awkward at all, bør means should in Norwegian. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is; this is a government agency, which has a set of guidelines that the bureaucrats then interpret on a case-by-case basis. The bureaucrat interviewed here says that he does not believe such an adoption will be approved (Han tror ikke at en slik adopsjon vil bli godkjent). Surely there would be no point in using the word "believe" if it was a fixed law. Lampman (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't speak Norwegian, and I have no idea how good your Norwegian is, but in English "Rules of the Government of Norway" would be called "Norwegian laws" and laws would not use weasel words like "should". I still maintain the sentence as translated by Google is awkward. However whatever (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
As it happens, even in the states, government rules and laws are not the same thing. Either way, I think the time has come to wait for input from other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Preferably fluent editors. I trust However-Whatever over the Google translation, but we can't translate and then interpret the translation using western terms.
Is there a Norwegian word for "law", or only for "rule"? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
There are words for both. Law: jus, rett, lov Rule: forskrift, regel, (the text carries reglene, a plural form) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Then it seems to translate to rule. "Norsk jus" (or rett or lov) seems more like the term that would translate to "Norwegian law". (Note that I'm speaking out of my ass because I don't know Norwegian whatsoever) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If I can add my two cents: I do not speak Norwegian, but I do speak Hebrew. In Hebrew there is only one word for both "rule" and "law" (chok), so if the article were in Hebrew, I could imagine the Google Translator not doing a good job choosing which word to translate into English. In other words, although the original source could be considered WP:RS, the google translation of the page should not (at least not in arguments as to which words should be used). Yonideworst (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The source is in Norwegian, not Hebrew. Going only by the root Norwegian source, should and rules are the spot on translations. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. Floydian writes: "... but we can't translate and then interpret the translation using western terms." Norway is a Western country. (And a North European, Nordic and Scandinavian country.)
  2. Lampman and Gwen Gale are correct in their translations.
  3. An English language version of the law itself is available here.

Nording (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I was refering to the idea that European ideas don't always translate to North American ideas, as many terms have significantly different meanings. Semantics though. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
As has been pointed out here; Norwegian isn't such a big mystery to anyone who speaks a germanic language. The translation is pretty straightforward: regel = rule, lov = law. Lampman (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I have replaced the word "rule" with the word "regulation". Hopefully this will be a good compromise. However whatever (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


Perhaps the sentence should be removed all together

Thank you, Nording, for this reference. Perhaps there was some confusion by the journalist who reported the story, because nothing in the letter of the law states that the parent has to be < 45 years of age. I see that the parent has to be over 25 years of age (or over 20 in unusual cirumstances), but I do not see an upper limit.

Remember, just because a reference is considered reliable doesn't mean that they are infallible. However whatever (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Be wary of slipping into original research. That's dated 23 years ago. There could be amendments, supplemental laws, court cases which have bearing. Journalists do make mistakes (all the time), but if a page at regjeringen.no doesn't say anything about someone being less than 45, this doesn't in any way mean someone over 45 can easily adopt a child in Norway. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The contradiction seems to merit a {{clarify}} However whatever (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no contradiction. Moreover, the English translation at regjeringen.no is a primary source and one would need to cite a secondary source in making any interpretations having to do with it. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You absolutely lost me here. The government of Norway is not a secondary or tertiary source. It is a primary source. However whatever (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC) I don't see how WP:PRIMARY applies. The government of Norway has the first and last word on its own laws. There is no need for a secondary source to verify Norwegian laws. However whatever (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PRIMARY#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources: One must cite a secondary source in making any interpretations having to do with a primary source. Your own interpretation of how the primary source meshes with the cited secondary source is original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Either a source contains information or it does not contain information. In this case it does not contain information. The fact that the law does not say that there is an upper age limit is a fact that can be seen by any reader. There is no need for a secondary source to say that because it is not open to dispute. However whatever (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I've already explained to you that you have no way of knowing that the page at regjeringen.no is the whole law and its interpretation as applied to adoptions in Norway. Either way, you are drawing your own interpretation from reading a primary source. Any such interpretation must be supported by a citation to a secondary source. This secondary source strongly hints that your original research is very likely mistaken. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
As I thought likely, the secondary source above indeed says there are two more sets of regulations, "both from 1999." Gwen Gale (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem with your secondary source, and that is I have no idea what is the source. Is it somebody with a .no domain who wrote a word document?

Another problem (which is beyond the scope of this discussion) is that based on this document they should have made an exception because Beate was significantly younger, but it's not up to us to second guess why the couple did not challenge the ruling.

I'll remove the {{clarify}} template. However whatever (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no problem with that source. It's a document file stored at bufetat.no, the "Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs" (the link above goes to a Google cache of the doc). It's a secondary source because it's interpretive. Either way, it does give clarification and hopefully, you can see why primary sources must be dealt with warily and any interpretations must be cited to a secondary source. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beate_Eriksen/Archive_1&oldid=1136556527"