This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Johan Bäckman article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 5 September 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was delete. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 29 March 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Not long ago, Bäckman & co "awarded" Max Jakobson, a highly regarded diplomat with reputation for good understanding of history, with the "Year's Misanthrope 2009" award. Where should this be mentioned in the article? Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 18:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's an interesting aritcle:
The headline translates as Johan Bäckman is a Russian propagandist, and the article starts by citing Kapo, which is both notable and reliable. Considering the context of this was Bäckman's first publicity stunt -- presentation of his book Pronssisoturi, and thus concerns the very activities that made Bäckman famous, should this be represented in the lead? Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 07:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
While he doesn't discuss Bäckman in specific, Edward Lucas has analysed the claims of an apartheid system in Estonia:
Lucas is a specialist in Eastern European affairs and has published a book on Russian political developments. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 07:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow, Bäckman has made a lot of strange claims. Maybe, we should tabulate them for better overview, something like this:
Fact claims | Interpretation & conclusions |
Bäckman claims that the Bronze Soldier was "destructed" in April 2007. | Bäckman claims this meant the "end of history" for Estonia. |
... | ... |
Thoughts? Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 11:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
As for the table, I guess it would be too unconventional. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 12:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be great confusion on what a Finnish docent is. An explanation in both Finnish and English is availabe here Puhe Helsingin yliopiston avajaisissa 11.9.2006 Niklas Meinander (PDF, Speech by Niklas Meinander at the Helsinki University opening ceremony). Quote: "It has now officially been decided that the English language translation should be adjunct professor." Whether Bäckman is giving lectures in the spring semester or not (he is), is totally irrelevat to his position a member of the University's academic staff. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 14:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
In Finland, according to "Organisation of Adjunct professor in Finland" (Suomen Dosenttiliitto [2]), there is 10 000 adjunct professor (dosentti) in Finland [3]. In this document, there are four different kind of dosenttis: 1) Post in own university, for example lecturer, intern, assistant 2) University post in other University or Institute of university 3) Dosentti can also work outside of academic world, for example in private sector 4) Freelancer-researcher who just try to get along with grants and projects. Peltimikko ( talk) 08:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
2012: Nowadays the correct English translation for "dosentti" is docent, at least at the University of Helsinki. It used to be "adjunct professor" but was probably too confusing. Docent is a title, not a post in the university - a docent doesn´t work for the university. ----
This new source says the legal status of docent / adjunct professor changed in 2010. Dr. Bäckman was "docent" / adjunct professor already in the 2009 version of this article.
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)-- Petri Krohn ( talk) 16:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The status of docent in Finnish universities has been evolving in the last years, possibly because of the opposition to Bäckman. Traditionally professors and docents in Finland have had full academic freedom, they cannot be fired for their scientific or political views. Now it seems the University of Helsinki is studying ways of depriving Dr. Bäckman the title of docent. This is the latest, revoking email account:
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Hmm, one must wonder why this is now the most read item on the Helsingin Sanomat site. Did Putin call Merkel or what... -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 20:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, the Russian press is already reporting, that Bäckman has been dismissed from his position as "Associate Professor".
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)-- Petri Krohn ( talk) 18:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The idea that Bäckman so much loves Cyrillic he would deliberately have his name transliterated forth and back again (interestingly, why would he use 'Бекман' and not 'Бякман'? And where does the '-c-' come from?) is so silly it needs darn good sources before it can be let into the article, what with WP:BLP and all. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 16:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
There's another tidbit that may have some merit: He has taught courses on the sociology of law, criminology and Russian studies. While it requires a source in the long term, it's one of the few changes by the anonymous editor that doesn't immediately run amok with the BLP. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 20:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The anonymous editor is obviously on a roll. Better wait until he/she is complete for tonight. Otherwise, he/she may feel a need to revert the revert, and that kind of warfare will cause more problems than it solves.
A major contributor to this article, Petri Krohn, appears to have a conflict of interest with its subject. Perhaps he should declare his interest in this topic. Martintg ( talk) 11:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
So, why is Mr. Bäckman so shy to admit that he said what he said in public for seven years? He'll be famous, I am certain. Colchicum ( talk) 13:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC) And I mean this and this in particular. What's wrong? Maybe he renounces this? Well, sure thing, "подобные утверждения вредят работе и подрывают научную репутацию", but it was entirely up to him to make fringe claims, nobody else is to blame. His reputation is just it. Colchicum ( talk) 13:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The above mentioned Andres Kahar has made several statements in the Estonian press against Bäckman; these statements are the opinions of Kahar and not general statements of Kaitsepolitseiamet. Therefore, the name of Kahar should be mentioned in this article. It is worth of mentioning, that a certain Kapo officer is making commentaries about one person in the Estonian press. In general, the Estonian press sources are not reliable. Yellow press sources are not sources for saying what Bäckman or any other person has "written"! This article seems to be a typical smearing campaign by Estonian nationalists against a person critisising their "policies". In general the article should be shortened by all means. Strange that an article was started, consisting fully of yellow press articles from Estonia and selected articles from Russia. There are no references to his actual writings, only second hand information from the yellow press. Very bad quality work from the editors of this article. -- 91.152.84.165 ( talk) 19:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I do not think we can refer to the "opinions" of the Estonian Security Police. The Kaitsepolitseiamet is a secret police. These organizations never make their true opinion known. They can issue statements, but the content can be fact as well as black ops. In this case we must also teke into account that Kahar is Bäckman's opposite number in Estonia. If we use them, they must be attributed to the spokesman; we must clearly state who said what, where and when. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 21:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
This should be made much shorter. Now it is a collection of strange yellow press quotations. Seemingly his "opinions" could be summarised in two sentences, not several paragraphs repeating each other. What is the purpose of this "article"?-- 91.152.84.165 ( talk) 19:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The sources clearly show that this article was written for the first time based solely on Estonian yellow press smearing articles about Bäckman. Therefore, this was an "Estonian" project. Is this good Wikipedia policy? Yellow press articles are actually not sources at all. Why they are not referring to articles and papers Bäckman wrote himself? In addition, the smearing campaign of Andres Kahar from the Estonian security police is evident and interesting. This should be mentioned. In several articles, Mr. Kahar is openly issuing insane statements of Bäckman, claiming him being "communist" or KGB agent whatever. In our knowledge Bäckman has filed a libel suit against Kahar, makes the issue even more actual. -- 91.152.84.165 ( talk) 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Also in a " Roy Keane playing style mood" tonight Colchicum :) Seriously I don't think this article makes Mr. Bäckman look bad, it makes him look like somebody who seems to enjoy irritating Finish people and the Baltic people, not sure it is true but that is the impression I got from the article (I also got the idea that if he was born as a Russian he would have been anti-Putin just to annoy Russians...). Interesting geezer is Bäckman though! — Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 20:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Bäckman-Teinonen relations are sourced to Eesti Ekspress. Apparently, its journalist read through Pronssisoturi, found the passages relating to Teinonen, checked out the translation affairs, and even interviewed Teinonen. While he also reports an inteview with a Kapo official in the same article -- because it's topical --, it's obvious that Bäckman-Teinonen relations are not based on information from Kapo. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 05:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Not only финский ученый Йохан Бекман, but also Heidi Hautala, Andres Kahar and Max Jakobson are living persons, and WP:BLP applies to them all. Colchicum ( talk) 21:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to have enough trouble without anons; so I have semi-protected it for a while. Complain here William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, but what does he say about it, most of us don't speak Finish :) — Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 13:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
For translation people can use google translator :) — Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 15:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Bäckman's claims about press freedom in Estonia, the Reporters sans frontìeres 2007 ranking might be instructive. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 12:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Unless reliable sources are given to confirm Bäckman's neo-Stalinists leanings, this template has no place here, as it violates Wikipedia:BLP. Óðinn ( talk) 11:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Based on sources -- both the cited and the uncited --, and the criteria of neo-Stalinism, I support retaining the navibox in this article. However, I might support adjusting its scope or exact naming, if there's consensus for that. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 16:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The template have no place here per WP:BLP. He is not self declared Neo-Stalinist nor there was an authoritative decision (e.g. Court decision), nor even 3d party neutral sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Bakharev ( talk • contribs) 05:48, 10 April 2009
If we knew Bäckman's day of birth, we could check whether he is actually a subject to entry prohibition here. I find it very curious that there are only two distinct sources for this incident; Helsinkin Sanomat and Russia Today. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 16:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Related: [7] Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 17:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
That is what the Finnish media outlet Helsingin Sanomat calls Johan Bäckman [8]. Should this go into the lead? It really sums up the reason for his notoriety. Martintg ( talk) 23:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Helsinkin Sanomat also uses the word kohudosentti. It's not an everyday world (check out Google "kohudosentti" and "kohudosentti -bäckman"), but it translates into something like scandalous docent, with "docent" meaning "future professor hopeful", as explained elsewhere. Given that scandalous is often abused by press, is something like this suitable in an encyclopædic text? Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 00:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
[9] is blatant POV-pushing. Most obvious is the desire to imply a coverup of sort through removing the (well-sourced) reference to the privacy laws. I urge all editors to not try stuff like that again. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 11:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Official translation of "Obligation to Leave and Prohibition on Entry Act" (old version, but terminology is usable) used term "expulsion" - I think we should use it here too, "deportation" has a bit different meaning (and "sent out" is way off). Põhja Konn ( talk) 17:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Bäckman has published the scans of the minister's order of his entry prohibition. Not the best way to reliability, but reasonably acceptable. I have reflected what the scans say in my latest edit. Notably, the scans make no mention of Bäckman criticising Estonian government's policies.
I'm also delighted that the scans provide some further insight into the data counterintelligence officials have gathered on Bäckman. No longer will we have to rely on newspaper reports; now we can cite the minister of interior on the findings. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 07:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Risto Teinonen has been reliably and consistently described as a neo-Nazi in the relevant literature. His Finnishness is more complicated; he was born in Finland, but has given up his Finnish citizenship and naturalised in Estonia.
In mentioning Teinonen, how much background should we give? What is the appropriate balance with WP:NEEP? Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 11:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is about Bäckman and his views. Why is his opinion of the Anton Salonen affair not notable? Offliner ( talk) 09:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
As it stands, Bäckman's views in his blogs are just a blog post. Wikipedia is not a blog aggregator; its purpose is not to update a biography every time the subject says something. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 12:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Those views of Bäckman that I added were attributed to a reliable source [10]. This article is about Bäckman, so his views are relevant, especially when they are covered by a reliable source. This revert and removal of sourced content is not acceptable: [11]. With the same argumentation, we could remove all the Estonian media criticism of Bäckman ("this article is not a platform for disseminating Estonian media criticism of Bäckman.") Besides, the article already covers some of Bäckmans views, such as "According to Bäckman, the Estonians and Finns are actually one nation and the Reublic of Estonia should be united with Finland where it could still have an autonomy." Why does Martintg not remove those, but only my additions? Offliner ( talk) 19:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Those views of Bäckman were attributed to a reliable source? A source that calls Bäckman "a political historian" clearly is far from WP:RS. Other than that claims in the article like "Of course they don’t have free press at all in that country" etc. are completely ridiculous considering for example the Reporters Without Borders 2008 Press Freedom Rankings. -- Termer ( talk) 06:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Bäckman arranged the demonstration of Anton incident in Helsinki on 3 June 09, the same date Putin visited in Finland. This time he gathered almost ten demonstrators (Bäckman's record is a breath-taking twenty). A few medias mentioned the event along with a couple demonstrations (against Russian's human rights, Karelian back etc.) - a one made even fun of it [13] (in Finnish). Helsingin Sanomat published a video of the demonstration [14] (in Finnish). Bäckman shouts his usual phrases, and a woman accusses that Bäckman is a liar and says she is aunt of Anton. Note that a person in 22 seconds looks a familiar, maybe Krohn? Peltimikko ( talk) 21:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Bäckman isn't criticising "integration policies" but "criminal discrimination" - see the given source. Why am I constantly being reverted when I try to make the wording more accurate? When the edit summaries are as helpful as this one: [15], I really don't know. Offliner ( talk) 16:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Bäckman has criticized the "criminal discrimination of Russian-speakers in Estonia." So how is Human rights in Estonia not relevant to the article? Why is it forbidden to add this wikilink? Offliner ( talk) 23:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
We've had trouble with User:91.152.84.165 before. Just in case, I checked the source of this edit by him. The source is a really ugly Flash app, but it does check out; according to a table therein, Bäckman got 554 votes. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 21:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The section "Declaration on Max Jakobson" is pure fiction by Bäckman. It do not have a third party sources and/or analysis/comments. Bäckman has thousands of opinions (for everything) for example Anton-incident [17], Russian special forces has a right to free Anton (in Russian) [18], against Finnish foreign minister [19], against Finnish justice minister [20] etc etc. Do we really have to publish all his opinions without third party source? I suggest we remove Bäckman's fantasies. Peltimikko ( talk) 20:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Some people tend to exaggerate his "controversiality". However, there is no source saying he is controversial. All university professors might be controversial. To say that all of his books are "highly controversial" is clearly false. Why to mention firts he is controversial political author and then to say that all of his books are highly controversial, without any source? Is somebody writes political pamhplets, they for sure are controversial. But if someone writes scholarly works, they for sure are not. -- 91.152.84.165 ( talk) 19:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, he is not a professor. He is a docent, which in Americal English is often called adjunct professor. Despite similar-sounding names, docent/adjunct professor is not a professor. And again, if only for his scientific works, this article would not exist. Non-notable docent - Finland has hundreds if not thousands such scientists, world great many thousands. Johan Bäckman is notable only because of his fringe views and books promoting those views - and of course, a successful publicity campaign promoting himself. However, the article should be balanced, especially as it is BLP - which does not mean we have to remove everything controversial, as this is what he is known for. Everything must be solidly sourced, though, everything sourced to blogs should go. -- Sander Säde 06:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The expulsion issue is mentioned in two places of this article; maybe one is enough? Why to mention it two times and in different ways? -- 91.152.84.165 ( talk) 19:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This article semms rather strange: some aspects are picked up from his books or some yellow press interviews (like his alleged opinions on Putin), but could we find some evidence of his opinions, like quotations from somewhere else than the yellow press? Also information about his books look like strange reviews. Some aspects are presented in rather propagandistic style. Maybe the whole article shoudl be shorter. Controversial, yes, but should the Wikipedia article also be controversial? -- 91.152.84.165 ( talk) 19:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
first of all it needs to be established according to whom Johan Bäckman is a " Victim_of_Estonian_political_repression". For second its still an opinion not a fact. And therefore creating such a category and adding Johan Bäckman into it is a violation of WP:NPOV.-- Termer ( talk) 19:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
This article shoule be edited after several individuals have been excluded from English Wikipedia for violations. The cahpter about kapo should be more objective: only Kapo has critized rather aggressively Bäckman in Estonian media. One should objektctively note the special position of Kapo in Estonia. The fact that several pro-Estonian activists have been excluded from Wikipedia should be taken into account. Now this part has the same information but is more objective. Also the information about expulsion should be unified with other material about anti-Bäckman activities by Estonian officialdom, especially Kapo. -- 91.152.84.165 ( talk) 09:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
There are some general problems:
- The article should be shorter, not every single (or selected) yellow press statements by Bäckman should be mentioned; - The focus should be on provocative books, not on "Russia" or "Estonia"; - The fact that Bäckman has allegedly made some statements about Putin is not interesting; why not then Stalin or some other? - The article should keep in mind Bäckman is both a scholar and a provocative political pamhletist - One main point is missing: Bäckman is having several court processes against Estonian ministry of interior (Kapo), this is not mentioned
Article is puzzled. -- 91.152.84.165 ( talk) 10:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The part with Kapo should be unified with the part about expulsion, and inforation about court processes Bäckman vs. Estonia should be added; This section should be called "Conrtadictions with Estonian security police" or something like that. -- 91.152.84.165 ( talk) 10:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Peltimikko, a Finnish nickname, is constantly delivering false information about Bäckman. Some gossips about J. Bäckman's father, published in Finnish or Estonian press, are not reliable material for Wikipedia article about J. Bäckman. Also the claim that Helsingin Sanomat allegedly wrote that J. Bäckman drove himself into marginal, is false information, since the newspaper did not even write that. J. Bäckman is one of the most famous Finns in Russian media nowadays, therefore he cannot be "marginal". Also random commentaries of some newspapers are not reliable material for this article, since such comments can be found numerous.
Peltimikko is writing lies and has done that for some time. We suggest he should be banned for example for a year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.84.165 ( talk) 17:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
So sorry, "toimitusjohtaja" is correct. I accidentally doubled "t" - but then again, Finnish is not my first language. However, can you please now stop the nonsense now? Or do you have some other funny claims?
And "marginal" is about Bäckman as a Russia-researcher - no one is taking him seriously as scientist anymore (which is really not surprising). As a spokesman in Russian media, he is naturally not marginal.
Marginal or not, it is interesting to note, that Helsingin Sanomat, on the bottom of its front page list the most popular searches on the HS.fi site. As of today " Johan Bäckman" is the most popular search of the day. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 22:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Bäckman article need some serious editing, several of links are non-exiting and information cannot be verified. Sänder Sade returned to deleted unexisting links. Säde can maybe find the links somewhere or delete them. Wikipedia is not forum for not-verified information. All information here demands sources. -- 91.152.84.165 ( talk) 08:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Several links of Bäckman article do not exist. This is why these links, which do not exist, should be removed. All information should be based on existing links and references to excisting links. After non-verified information was removed, Sänder Sane undid all corrections. Also Peltimikko has carried out endless campaign against Bäckman. This article has several non-existing links and references. They should be either edited, re-linked somewhere or removed. -- 91.152.84.165 ( talk) 08:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Sänder Sade returned several non-existing links to the article, then tried to ban the editor, who only tried to get rid of non-existing links. Sänder Sade is clearly wandalising the article. Only after that, however, he did the right thing, and corrected the links. However still, Wikipedia is not the proper place to write unfounded information about anybody. For example, to say that "Bäckman denied being FSB agent" does not have any source. Interesting, that Sander Sade want to have double standards for this article. To correct links and sources is not censorship, or to correct false information. False information can be deleted, or somebody can replace it easily with correct information. -- AntifascistFront ( talk) 08:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Restored (and with reference using that specific word) and added some of Bäckman's contentions regarding Finnish aggression in WWII, that they believed themselves to be a master race (along with the Estonians and Germans), and that Finnish academics have written about the issues of Finnish anti-Semitism and (racist) Russophobia.
PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►
TALK
02:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the word "controversial" should be removed from the first line. Whether he is controversial or not, saying so in the first line will be seen as taking a position on the matter. For neutrality, we should stick with the facts about him, rather than including an opinion - even if it is someone else's cited opinion. The lede already says that his books are controversial, and this should be enough to give readers an idea of how he is regarded. I'm removing the wording for now. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I deleted the "persona non grata" thing again. Please respond here before reverting it. Reason: the fact that this person was once refused entry to Estonia is not a proof that he is persona non grata in Estonia. See Wikipedia article Persona_non_grata on the definition of persona non grata. "a foreign person whose entering or remaining in a particular country is prohibited by that country's government. It is the most serious form of censure which one country can apply to foreign diplomats, who are otherwise protected by diplomatic immunity from arrest and other normal kinds of prosecution." -- Definitely does not apply to Bäckman. Second reason: being an "unwelcome" person in Estonia is by no means a crucial information about Bäckman. It is completely unproportional to mention this in the leading paragraph. There is a separate section on this (Expulsion from Estonia) and that is enough.
The deleted text:
"and persona non grata [1] in Estonia.
Again, please do not revert without giving a reason here. I explained why this sentence is wrong (using "persona non grata" in a highly idiosyncratic way) and inappropriate (giving unproportional significance to a fact by mentioning it in the lead paragraph of article). If you do not agree, you should explain why, otherwise it is just vandalizing.
Lebatsnok ( talk) 12:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Johan Bäckman article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 5 September 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was delete. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 29 March 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Not long ago, Bäckman & co "awarded" Max Jakobson, a highly regarded diplomat with reputation for good understanding of history, with the "Year's Misanthrope 2009" award. Where should this be mentioned in the article? Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 18:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's an interesting aritcle:
The headline translates as Johan Bäckman is a Russian propagandist, and the article starts by citing Kapo, which is both notable and reliable. Considering the context of this was Bäckman's first publicity stunt -- presentation of his book Pronssisoturi, and thus concerns the very activities that made Bäckman famous, should this be represented in the lead? Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 07:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
While he doesn't discuss Bäckman in specific, Edward Lucas has analysed the claims of an apartheid system in Estonia:
Lucas is a specialist in Eastern European affairs and has published a book on Russian political developments. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 07:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow, Bäckman has made a lot of strange claims. Maybe, we should tabulate them for better overview, something like this:
Fact claims | Interpretation & conclusions |
Bäckman claims that the Bronze Soldier was "destructed" in April 2007. | Bäckman claims this meant the "end of history" for Estonia. |
... | ... |
Thoughts? Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 11:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
As for the table, I guess it would be too unconventional. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 12:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be great confusion on what a Finnish docent is. An explanation in both Finnish and English is availabe here Puhe Helsingin yliopiston avajaisissa 11.9.2006 Niklas Meinander (PDF, Speech by Niklas Meinander at the Helsinki University opening ceremony). Quote: "It has now officially been decided that the English language translation should be adjunct professor." Whether Bäckman is giving lectures in the spring semester or not (he is), is totally irrelevat to his position a member of the University's academic staff. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 14:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
In Finland, according to "Organisation of Adjunct professor in Finland" (Suomen Dosenttiliitto [2]), there is 10 000 adjunct professor (dosentti) in Finland [3]. In this document, there are four different kind of dosenttis: 1) Post in own university, for example lecturer, intern, assistant 2) University post in other University or Institute of university 3) Dosentti can also work outside of academic world, for example in private sector 4) Freelancer-researcher who just try to get along with grants and projects. Peltimikko ( talk) 08:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
2012: Nowadays the correct English translation for "dosentti" is docent, at least at the University of Helsinki. It used to be "adjunct professor" but was probably too confusing. Docent is a title, not a post in the university - a docent doesn´t work for the university. ----
This new source says the legal status of docent / adjunct professor changed in 2010. Dr. Bäckman was "docent" / adjunct professor already in the 2009 version of this article.
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)-- Petri Krohn ( talk) 16:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The status of docent in Finnish universities has been evolving in the last years, possibly because of the opposition to Bäckman. Traditionally professors and docents in Finland have had full academic freedom, they cannot be fired for their scientific or political views. Now it seems the University of Helsinki is studying ways of depriving Dr. Bäckman the title of docent. This is the latest, revoking email account:
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Hmm, one must wonder why this is now the most read item on the Helsingin Sanomat site. Did Putin call Merkel or what... -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 20:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, the Russian press is already reporting, that Bäckman has been dismissed from his position as "Associate Professor".
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)-- Petri Krohn ( talk) 18:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The idea that Bäckman so much loves Cyrillic he would deliberately have his name transliterated forth and back again (interestingly, why would he use 'Бекман' and not 'Бякман'? And where does the '-c-' come from?) is so silly it needs darn good sources before it can be let into the article, what with WP:BLP and all. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 16:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
There's another tidbit that may have some merit: He has taught courses on the sociology of law, criminology and Russian studies. While it requires a source in the long term, it's one of the few changes by the anonymous editor that doesn't immediately run amok with the BLP. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 20:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The anonymous editor is obviously on a roll. Better wait until he/she is complete for tonight. Otherwise, he/she may feel a need to revert the revert, and that kind of warfare will cause more problems than it solves.
A major contributor to this article, Petri Krohn, appears to have a conflict of interest with its subject. Perhaps he should declare his interest in this topic. Martintg ( talk) 11:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
So, why is Mr. Bäckman so shy to admit that he said what he said in public for seven years? He'll be famous, I am certain. Colchicum ( talk) 13:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC) And I mean this and this in particular. What's wrong? Maybe he renounces this? Well, sure thing, "подобные утверждения вредят работе и подрывают научную репутацию", but it was entirely up to him to make fringe claims, nobody else is to blame. His reputation is just it. Colchicum ( talk) 13:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The above mentioned Andres Kahar has made several statements in the Estonian press against Bäckman; these statements are the opinions of Kahar and not general statements of Kaitsepolitseiamet. Therefore, the name of Kahar should be mentioned in this article. It is worth of mentioning, that a certain Kapo officer is making commentaries about one person in the Estonian press. In general, the Estonian press sources are not reliable. Yellow press sources are not sources for saying what Bäckman or any other person has "written"! This article seems to be a typical smearing campaign by Estonian nationalists against a person critisising their "policies". In general the article should be shortened by all means. Strange that an article was started, consisting fully of yellow press articles from Estonia and selected articles from Russia. There are no references to his actual writings, only second hand information from the yellow press. Very bad quality work from the editors of this article. -- 91.152.84.165 ( talk) 19:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I do not think we can refer to the "opinions" of the Estonian Security Police. The Kaitsepolitseiamet is a secret police. These organizations never make their true opinion known. They can issue statements, but the content can be fact as well as black ops. In this case we must also teke into account that Kahar is Bäckman's opposite number in Estonia. If we use them, they must be attributed to the spokesman; we must clearly state who said what, where and when. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 21:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
This should be made much shorter. Now it is a collection of strange yellow press quotations. Seemingly his "opinions" could be summarised in two sentences, not several paragraphs repeating each other. What is the purpose of this "article"?-- 91.152.84.165 ( talk) 19:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The sources clearly show that this article was written for the first time based solely on Estonian yellow press smearing articles about Bäckman. Therefore, this was an "Estonian" project. Is this good Wikipedia policy? Yellow press articles are actually not sources at all. Why they are not referring to articles and papers Bäckman wrote himself? In addition, the smearing campaign of Andres Kahar from the Estonian security police is evident and interesting. This should be mentioned. In several articles, Mr. Kahar is openly issuing insane statements of Bäckman, claiming him being "communist" or KGB agent whatever. In our knowledge Bäckman has filed a libel suit against Kahar, makes the issue even more actual. -- 91.152.84.165 ( talk) 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Also in a " Roy Keane playing style mood" tonight Colchicum :) Seriously I don't think this article makes Mr. Bäckman look bad, it makes him look like somebody who seems to enjoy irritating Finish people and the Baltic people, not sure it is true but that is the impression I got from the article (I also got the idea that if he was born as a Russian he would have been anti-Putin just to annoy Russians...). Interesting geezer is Bäckman though! — Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 20:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Bäckman-Teinonen relations are sourced to Eesti Ekspress. Apparently, its journalist read through Pronssisoturi, found the passages relating to Teinonen, checked out the translation affairs, and even interviewed Teinonen. While he also reports an inteview with a Kapo official in the same article -- because it's topical --, it's obvious that Bäckman-Teinonen relations are not based on information from Kapo. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 05:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Not only финский ученый Йохан Бекман, but also Heidi Hautala, Andres Kahar and Max Jakobson are living persons, and WP:BLP applies to them all. Colchicum ( talk) 21:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This article seems to have enough trouble without anons; so I have semi-protected it for a while. Complain here William M. Connolley ( talk) 07:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, but what does he say about it, most of us don't speak Finish :) — Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 13:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
For translation people can use google translator :) — Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 15:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Bäckman's claims about press freedom in Estonia, the Reporters sans frontìeres 2007 ranking might be instructive. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 12:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Unless reliable sources are given to confirm Bäckman's neo-Stalinists leanings, this template has no place here, as it violates Wikipedia:BLP. Óðinn ( talk) 11:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Based on sources -- both the cited and the uncited --, and the criteria of neo-Stalinism, I support retaining the navibox in this article. However, I might support adjusting its scope or exact naming, if there's consensus for that. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 16:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The template have no place here per WP:BLP. He is not self declared Neo-Stalinist nor there was an authoritative decision (e.g. Court decision), nor even 3d party neutral sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Bakharev ( talk • contribs) 05:48, 10 April 2009
If we knew Bäckman's day of birth, we could check whether he is actually a subject to entry prohibition here. I find it very curious that there are only two distinct sources for this incident; Helsinkin Sanomat and Russia Today. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 16:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Related: [7] Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 17:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
That is what the Finnish media outlet Helsingin Sanomat calls Johan Bäckman [8]. Should this go into the lead? It really sums up the reason for his notoriety. Martintg ( talk) 23:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Helsinkin Sanomat also uses the word kohudosentti. It's not an everyday world (check out Google "kohudosentti" and "kohudosentti -bäckman"), but it translates into something like scandalous docent, with "docent" meaning "future professor hopeful", as explained elsewhere. Given that scandalous is often abused by press, is something like this suitable in an encyclopædic text? Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 00:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
[9] is blatant POV-pushing. Most obvious is the desire to imply a coverup of sort through removing the (well-sourced) reference to the privacy laws. I urge all editors to not try stuff like that again. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 11:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Official translation of "Obligation to Leave and Prohibition on Entry Act" (old version, but terminology is usable) used term "expulsion" - I think we should use it here too, "deportation" has a bit different meaning (and "sent out" is way off). Põhja Konn ( talk) 17:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Bäckman has published the scans of the minister's order of his entry prohibition. Not the best way to reliability, but reasonably acceptable. I have reflected what the scans say in my latest edit. Notably, the scans make no mention of Bäckman criticising Estonian government's policies.
I'm also delighted that the scans provide some further insight into the data counterintelligence officials have gathered on Bäckman. No longer will we have to rely on newspaper reports; now we can cite the minister of interior on the findings. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 07:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Risto Teinonen has been reliably and consistently described as a neo-Nazi in the relevant literature. His Finnishness is more complicated; he was born in Finland, but has given up his Finnish citizenship and naturalised in Estonia.
In mentioning Teinonen, how much background should we give? What is the appropriate balance with WP:NEEP? Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 11:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is about Bäckman and his views. Why is his opinion of the Anton Salonen affair not notable? Offliner ( talk) 09:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
As it stands, Bäckman's views in his blogs are just a blog post. Wikipedia is not a blog aggregator; its purpose is not to update a biography every time the subject says something. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 12:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Those views of Bäckman that I added were attributed to a reliable source [10]. This article is about Bäckman, so his views are relevant, especially when they are covered by a reliable source. This revert and removal of sourced content is not acceptable: [11]. With the same argumentation, we could remove all the Estonian media criticism of Bäckman ("this article is not a platform for disseminating Estonian media criticism of Bäckman.") Besides, the article already covers some of Bäckmans views, such as "According to Bäckman, the Estonians and Finns are actually one nation and the Reublic of Estonia should be united with Finland where it could still have an autonomy." Why does Martintg not remove those, but only my additions? Offliner ( talk) 19:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Those views of Bäckman were attributed to a reliable source? A source that calls Bäckman "a political historian" clearly is far from WP:RS. Other than that claims in the article like "Of course they don’t have free press at all in that country" etc. are completely ridiculous considering for example the Reporters Without Borders 2008 Press Freedom Rankings. -- Termer ( talk) 06:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Bäckman arranged the demonstration of Anton incident in Helsinki on 3 June 09, the same date Putin visited in Finland. This time he gathered almost ten demonstrators (Bäckman's record is a breath-taking twenty). A few medias mentioned the event along with a couple demonstrations (against Russian's human rights, Karelian back etc.) - a one made even fun of it [13] (in Finnish). Helsingin Sanomat published a video of the demonstration [14] (in Finnish). Bäckman shouts his usual phrases, and a woman accusses that Bäckman is a liar and says she is aunt of Anton. Note that a person in 22 seconds looks a familiar, maybe Krohn? Peltimikko ( talk) 21:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Bäckman isn't criticising "integration policies" but "criminal discrimination" - see the given source. Why am I constantly being reverted when I try to make the wording more accurate? When the edit summaries are as helpful as this one: [15], I really don't know. Offliner ( talk) 16:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Bäckman has criticized the "criminal discrimination of Russian-speakers in Estonia." So how is Human rights in Estonia not relevant to the article? Why is it forbidden to add this wikilink? Offliner ( talk) 23:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
We've had trouble with User:91.152.84.165 before. Just in case, I checked the source of this edit by him. The source is a really ugly Flash app, but it does check out; according to a table therein, Bäckman got 554 votes. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 21:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The section "Declaration on Max Jakobson" is pure fiction by Bäckman. It do not have a third party sources and/or analysis/comments. Bäckman has thousands of opinions (for everything) for example Anton-incident [17], Russian special forces has a right to free Anton (in Russian) [18], against Finnish foreign minister [19], against Finnish justice minister [20] etc etc. Do we really have to publish all his opinions without third party source? I suggest we remove Bäckman's fantasies. Peltimikko ( talk) 20:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Some people tend to exaggerate his "controversiality". However, there is no source saying he is controversial. All university professors might be controversial. To say that all of his books are "highly controversial" is clearly false. Why to mention firts he is controversial political author and then to say that all of his books are highly controversial, without any source? Is somebody writes political pamhplets, they for sure are controversial. But if someone writes scholarly works, they for sure are not. -- 91.152.84.165 ( talk) 19:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, he is not a professor. He is a docent, which in Americal English is often called adjunct professor. Despite similar-sounding names, docent/adjunct professor is not a professor. And again, if only for his scientific works, this article would not exist. Non-notable docent - Finland has hundreds if not thousands such scientists, world great many thousands. Johan Bäckman is notable only because of his fringe views and books promoting those views - and of course, a successful publicity campaign promoting himself. However, the article should be balanced, especially as it is BLP - which does not mean we have to remove everything controversial, as this is what he is known for. Everything must be solidly sourced, though, everything sourced to blogs should go. -- Sander Säde 06:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The expulsion issue is mentioned in two places of this article; maybe one is enough? Why to mention it two times and in different ways? -- 91.152.84.165 ( talk) 19:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
This article semms rather strange: some aspects are picked up from his books or some yellow press interviews (like his alleged opinions on Putin), but could we find some evidence of his opinions, like quotations from somewhere else than the yellow press? Also information about his books look like strange reviews. Some aspects are presented in rather propagandistic style. Maybe the whole article shoudl be shorter. Controversial, yes, but should the Wikipedia article also be controversial? -- 91.152.84.165 ( talk) 19:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
first of all it needs to be established according to whom Johan Bäckman is a " Victim_of_Estonian_political_repression". For second its still an opinion not a fact. And therefore creating such a category and adding Johan Bäckman into it is a violation of WP:NPOV.-- Termer ( talk) 19:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
This article shoule be edited after several individuals have been excluded from English Wikipedia for violations. The cahpter about kapo should be more objective: only Kapo has critized rather aggressively Bäckman in Estonian media. One should objektctively note the special position of Kapo in Estonia. The fact that several pro-Estonian activists have been excluded from Wikipedia should be taken into account. Now this part has the same information but is more objective. Also the information about expulsion should be unified with other material about anti-Bäckman activities by Estonian officialdom, especially Kapo. -- 91.152.84.165 ( talk) 09:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
There are some general problems:
- The article should be shorter, not every single (or selected) yellow press statements by Bäckman should be mentioned; - The focus should be on provocative books, not on "Russia" or "Estonia"; - The fact that Bäckman has allegedly made some statements about Putin is not interesting; why not then Stalin or some other? - The article should keep in mind Bäckman is both a scholar and a provocative political pamhletist - One main point is missing: Bäckman is having several court processes against Estonian ministry of interior (Kapo), this is not mentioned
Article is puzzled. -- 91.152.84.165 ( talk) 10:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The part with Kapo should be unified with the part about expulsion, and inforation about court processes Bäckman vs. Estonia should be added; This section should be called "Conrtadictions with Estonian security police" or something like that. -- 91.152.84.165 ( talk) 10:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Peltimikko, a Finnish nickname, is constantly delivering false information about Bäckman. Some gossips about J. Bäckman's father, published in Finnish or Estonian press, are not reliable material for Wikipedia article about J. Bäckman. Also the claim that Helsingin Sanomat allegedly wrote that J. Bäckman drove himself into marginal, is false information, since the newspaper did not even write that. J. Bäckman is one of the most famous Finns in Russian media nowadays, therefore he cannot be "marginal". Also random commentaries of some newspapers are not reliable material for this article, since such comments can be found numerous.
Peltimikko is writing lies and has done that for some time. We suggest he should be banned for example for a year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.84.165 ( talk) 17:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
So sorry, "toimitusjohtaja" is correct. I accidentally doubled "t" - but then again, Finnish is not my first language. However, can you please now stop the nonsense now? Or do you have some other funny claims?
And "marginal" is about Bäckman as a Russia-researcher - no one is taking him seriously as scientist anymore (which is really not surprising). As a spokesman in Russian media, he is naturally not marginal.
Marginal or not, it is interesting to note, that Helsingin Sanomat, on the bottom of its front page list the most popular searches on the HS.fi site. As of today " Johan Bäckman" is the most popular search of the day. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 22:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Bäckman article need some serious editing, several of links are non-exiting and information cannot be verified. Sänder Sade returned to deleted unexisting links. Säde can maybe find the links somewhere or delete them. Wikipedia is not forum for not-verified information. All information here demands sources. -- 91.152.84.165 ( talk) 08:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Several links of Bäckman article do not exist. This is why these links, which do not exist, should be removed. All information should be based on existing links and references to excisting links. After non-verified information was removed, Sänder Sane undid all corrections. Also Peltimikko has carried out endless campaign against Bäckman. This article has several non-existing links and references. They should be either edited, re-linked somewhere or removed. -- 91.152.84.165 ( talk) 08:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Sänder Sade returned several non-existing links to the article, then tried to ban the editor, who only tried to get rid of non-existing links. Sänder Sade is clearly wandalising the article. Only after that, however, he did the right thing, and corrected the links. However still, Wikipedia is not the proper place to write unfounded information about anybody. For example, to say that "Bäckman denied being FSB agent" does not have any source. Interesting, that Sander Sade want to have double standards for this article. To correct links and sources is not censorship, or to correct false information. False information can be deleted, or somebody can replace it easily with correct information. -- AntifascistFront ( talk) 08:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Restored (and with reference using that specific word) and added some of Bäckman's contentions regarding Finnish aggression in WWII, that they believed themselves to be a master race (along with the Estonians and Germans), and that Finnish academics have written about the issues of Finnish anti-Semitism and (racist) Russophobia.
PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►
TALK
02:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the word "controversial" should be removed from the first line. Whether he is controversial or not, saying so in the first line will be seen as taking a position on the matter. For neutrality, we should stick with the facts about him, rather than including an opinion - even if it is someone else's cited opinion. The lede already says that his books are controversial, and this should be enough to give readers an idea of how he is regarded. I'm removing the wording for now. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I deleted the "persona non grata" thing again. Please respond here before reverting it. Reason: the fact that this person was once refused entry to Estonia is not a proof that he is persona non grata in Estonia. See Wikipedia article Persona_non_grata on the definition of persona non grata. "a foreign person whose entering or remaining in a particular country is prohibited by that country's government. It is the most serious form of censure which one country can apply to foreign diplomats, who are otherwise protected by diplomatic immunity from arrest and other normal kinds of prosecution." -- Definitely does not apply to Bäckman. Second reason: being an "unwelcome" person in Estonia is by no means a crucial information about Bäckman. It is completely unproportional to mention this in the leading paragraph. There is a separate section on this (Expulsion from Estonia) and that is enough.
The deleted text:
"and persona non grata [1] in Estonia.
Again, please do not revert without giving a reason here. I explained why this sentence is wrong (using "persona non grata" in a highly idiosyncratic way) and inappropriate (giving unproportional significance to a fact by mentioning it in the lead paragraph of article). If you do not agree, you should explain why, otherwise it is just vandalizing.
Lebatsnok ( talk) 12:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)