Talk:Kristina Torbergsen

Sensitive material

Very ensitive material keeps being inserted to this article even though her name has not been widely mentioned in Norwegian media in relation to the case. I strongly object to inserting the information at this time. We should not easily disregard the reasons why Norwegian media is not giving any name. A complaint regarding those media who has named her is now filed to the Norwegian Press Complaints Commission. I think we should await their decision, or other new developments in the case, before including it in the article. Iselilja (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

While I do not believe the Norweigan Wikipedia or the Press complaints Commission should be used as a yardstick for what we do here on the English Wikipedia, the inclusion of any such material must be reliably sourced and its appropriateness for the article should probably be discussed here. As such I am protecting he page from editing for a few days in order to give time for a consensus to form on this issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the material was supported by a reliable source, but as there has only been one source publishing her name, I don't think it's appropiate to include the material. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually there were two reliable sources who published her name, one of which subsequently stopped publishing it, but did not retract the original articles. It is important to note that one of the two local newspapers and the one who did not publish her name, has close ties to the alleged male offender. Is would also like to add that this person is a public person who also is an elected official and holds high public office. She until recently ran for parliament. The name is out there, and it is my opinion that people has a right to know who they are voting for. --Roghue 00:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roghue (talk • contribs)

I don't disagree with you, but we should use the Wikipedia-policies to find out what to do. In WP:BLP, the sections WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:WELLKNOWN suggests we shouldn't include it: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. We don't have multiple reliable third-party sources stating Torbergsen is the "25-year old" do we? Mentoz86 (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No, we only have two reliable sources thus far. However i interpret the Wikipedia-policies somewhat differently, in my opinion it is not a question of noteworthy-ness or relevance, the incident itself has been documented extensively for a long period of time, i think everyone agrees that the incident is relevant and noteworthy. The question relates to privacy infringement on the part of Torbergsen, and if her name should be mentioned, therefore we should decide if she is indeed entitled to that kind for privacy in this matter. As i stated above i have doubts about that. --Roghue 00:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roghue (talk • contribs)

This page is being censored by Norwegian editors whose justifications for censorship are inappropriate to international English-language Wikipedia. I apologize in advance for writing a long response here but I am afraid such censorship is common in articles on Norwegian topics, and this practice needs exposure and discussion. Norwegians should not be allowed to grant themselves extraordinary privacy protections on English-language Wikipedia. The facts being suppressed in this particular case are amply sourced, and the argument for censorship that is being advanced is one based not on proper sourcing but on Norwegian press privacy standards, which are irrelevant to Wikipedia's practice and not consistent with it. It must be underscored in the case of Kristina Torbergsen that there is no dispute about the facts, only about the appropriateness of preserving anonymity. Kristina Torbergsen is a public person, a politician and a political opponent of fellow Norwegian Labor Party member Roger Ingebrigtsen. She has made allegations about Ingebrigtsen and herself (I am keeping this just a little vague for the talk page, and also omitting further Norwegian press reference until the article is unprotected), and these led other women to testify about other episodes with the same man. When he knew Torbergsen's allegations would become public, Ingebrigtsen quit the Norwegian national government and left the country, all to the accompaniment of front-page news coverage. So, obviously notable and newsworthy. But Torbergsen's highly publicized allegations were made privately, within the Norwegian Labor Party, and were presented to the press on an anonymous basis. Most Norwegian publications have gone along with Torbergsen and preserved her anonymity, at the same time as they have printed interviews with her and even have published an open letter from her. (The papers that chose to reveal her name did so because it was the only way to inform the public about how various rival factions of the Norwegian Labor Party were involved in the response to the revelations.) But the fact that the majority of Norwegian papers have kept her name out of their extensive coverage of the case does not mean English-language Wikipedia should suppress this essential fact. If the standards of Norwegian journalism were generally adopted, it would require the deletion of great swathes of English-language Wikipedia. If, alternatively, Norwegian privacy norms were adopted just for articles on Norwegian topics, that would entail a double standard and would unfairly give Norwegian public figures more privacy than the public figures of other nations. To respond to Mentoz86's relevant question about reliable sourcing, the quality and quantity of sourcing here has been understated. Even the Norwegian papers that only refer to Torbergsen as "the 25-year-old female politician from Troms" implicitly acknowledge that the few papers who have revealed the name have revealed the right one. Thus there are several categories of reliable sourcing: (A) two (actually at least three) explicit direct mainstream media sources; (B) a wealth of others that give implicit corroboration by reference to the media outlets under A that have revealed the name; and (C) the Norwegian Labor Party's complaint to the Press Complaints Commission over violations of privacy, which confirms that the name is correct, and which has been widely reported on, as was already mentioned and sourced in previous edits of this article before it was censored. To be clear, there is nobody that has raised any question about whether the correct 25-year-old Labor Party politician from Troms has been identified; all the questions are about whether it was appropriate to identify the maker of the accusations. (Also, the Norwegian Labor Party's parliamentary candidate lists are public and make the matter very clear, but using them might fall under the heading of original research, even thought the research would be elementary.) The Norwegian Wikipedia editor Iselilja, who tells us that "We should not easily disregard the reasons why Norwegian media is not giving any name" (see beginning of page), is both inaccurate, because multiple Norwegian media reports are where Wikipedia learned the name in the first place, and is also illogically assuming her conclusion: if what we are debating is whether we should follow Norwegian media practice, we will need some reason for doing so other than Norwegian media practice. Iselilja urges that Wikipedia await and be governed by the decision of the Press Complaints Commission (the inaccurate but official translation of Pressens Faglige Utvalg, PFU) on the question of reporting the name. That could take months. Fortunately, however, the PFU as Norway's semi-official press self-censorship board neither claims nor has any authority over the users and editors of English-language Wikipedia and should be ignored. Mstarli (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Introduction: I find this article and case raises very severe ethical questions and dilemmas. Torbergsen is only barely Wikipedia notable (and I am in fact considering an AfD nomination). Before my latest deletion of stuff relating to the sensitive case it was totally dominating the article about her. The overwhelmingly majority of and dominating media in Norway have decided to conceal her name (for the time being). We are in a situation where approximately 98 % of the media have decided to conceal her name, while 2-3 have revealed it. Does this 2-3 exceptions from the general decision to conceal the name, give Wikipedia a carte blanche to link her name to the case in question ? Wikipedia BLP rules to consider: WP:BLP Conservative editing, editorial judgment "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." WP:BLP1E : "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." WP:WELLKNOWN (pr. Mentoz): "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say." My conclusion after having read the BLP policies is that we should follow the ethical and editorial choices made by 98% of Norwegian media, not the 2%. Wikipedia is not meant to be an alternative news source. The common practice is to take clue from reliable, free media, and Wikipedia should even be a bit more careful and conservative than the general media. Not less so. Regarding the Norwegian Press Complaints Commission: It´s important to point out that this commission is set up by the media organizations themselves, and thus widely respected by the news media, who will generally adhere to its decision. In this case, it means that the two media that has mentioned woman´s name will probably stop doing so if the commission finds their outing unethical. They will also be obliged to add the verdict to earlier articles that may still be in their internet archives. We may then be in a situation in a couple of months that this article may be built on material that 98% of the Norwegian press have decided not to link the woman´s name to, and the two-three sources from minor media who did link it to her name have big labels saying UNETHICAL on them. Should Wikipedia then go on to link the case to Torbergsen? I think Wikipedia will be very well served by waiting a couple of months to see how the Press Complaints Commision rules. We will then see the arguments made by both sides, in addition to the arguments and verdict from the commission. While it varies a bit how long it takes for the commision to handle the complaints, it is normally handled within 3-4 months. There is no appeal. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

First, the perception that 98% of the Norwegian media thinks it is morally wrong to print her name is in my opinion not correct. The statistics can be used both ways;

One can in fact state that:

• 50% of the local relevant media has revealed her name
• 100% of the local independent media (without close ties to the involved parties) has revealed her name
• One of, if not Norway's largest news-websites and the largest independent (without governmental "pressestøtte") news source has published her name
• The "98 %" of the media is mostly local newspapers in regions unrelated to the case or otherwise not expected to cover it

Secondly regarding the Norwegian Press Complaints Commission its majority is composed of news-editors from the largest newspapers themselves and cannot be considered independent. The commission itself is not uncontroversial, and has been the target of criticism in the past. For example the ENTIRE commission is made up of people who has already decided NOT publish Torbergsens name, its not hard to guess what their decision is going to be. The commission should not be used as a moral authority for English Wikipedia.

Third, i must stress again what this issue is really about, we are not discussing whether or not to include some wild "claim" or tabloid-sourced unsubstantiated controversy, the veracity of the story itself is not controversial and has been covered and sourced beyond reckoning. We are discussing whether or not to "tie" Torbergsens name to the incident, right? and we should protect her privacy, but once again as i stated above she is a public person. There as other aspects to this as well, such as the inter-factional conflicts within Troms Labour party, and also a wider fault-line between the AUF generation and the party veterans, with regards to the parliament nomination processes nationwide. Have a nice day --Roghue 22:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roghue (talk • contribs)