Talk:The Brussels Journal

The Brussels Journal is a blog featuring prominent researchers and bloggers and which serves as one of the only conservative news media in belgium. It not only reports on the news, but makes them, and therefore it is important to have all pertinent information on this blog on Wikipedia. Misheu 10:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources (WP:RS) supporting these claims. 83.233.154.50 10:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You need me to prove to you that the Brussels Journal is used as a news source on Wikipedia? It's usually a good idea to see "what links to here" before suggesting a speedy delete. I now did a quick search and wikified a few more links. Misheu 11:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense, this is an article about a website and blog who reports on politics of Belgium and the EU. Its readership is large, and it's contributers are internationally known and qualified in their field. The Belgian government has tried a number of times to obstruct further publication of the weblog. It is a topic of dispute in Belgian politics in its own right, because it is one of the very few news sources that offers independant news (and is not directly or indirectly government controlled). It should be kept. Stijn Calle 14:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not notable, I'm saying there needs to be multiple non-trivial second hand sources asserting the article's notability (see Wikipedia:Notability), if it's to be kept, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Instead of acting insulted, you could try and provide such, and thereby vastly improve the article. 83.233.154.50 15:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the fact that Wikipedia uses this blog "as a news source" means absolutely nothing in terms of notability, Wikipedia itself can never be considered a reliable source, see WP:RS. 83.233.154.50 15:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

the fact that Wikipedia uses it as a new source means it is of interest to wikipedia users ot know more about what they're reading. You want to bring this issue up to a vote? Misheu 18:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Instead of threatening to take it to a vote, how about you do something constructive and improve the article with actual sources, as required by Wikipedia guidelines? Mackan 18:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Threatening? I thought this was Wikipedia policy. How about instead of threatening to delete you actually do what Wikipedia requires: read the article and see what links to it. For some reason you're getting insulted, but you could have easily wrote something on the "talk" page instead of putting an "express delete" notice. You call that being civil and constructive? Misheu 18:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Newspapers like De Standaard en De Morgen have mentioned the Brussels Journal. I'm not sure what the fuss is all about here. Intangible2.0 19:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe bring some references? It would prevent future deletion attempts. Misheu 20:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to wonder...why is it that the Dutch language version is much more even handed and the English version reads like it was written by some fawning brat?

Example

In Dutch there's the line "Paul Beliën, die de site oprichtte als alternatief voor de gevestigde Vlaamse media" which translates to Paul Belien, whom started the site as an alternative for the established (news)media in Flanders.

In the version here we get a line "It is a source of news that is independent of Belgian government support."

Which is neither here nor there. Any blog can claim of itself to be an independent non governmentally supported 'news source'.

What about a line such as : "Belien summed up the raison d'être of the European journalists and writers behind The Brussels Journal as restoring the values of freedom, the quest for Knowledge and Truth to the “consensus-culture” of contemporary Europe."

So what. I didn't think the idea of wikipedia is to take over blindly the self declared "rasion d'être" without any caveats. All that line does is try to convey the impression that only those posting there know what the truth is, what true freedom is and what really happens in Europe.

Side note. Using the Brussels Journal to defend the Brussels Journal is beyond the ridiculous. It's like using the bible to proof the bible right. It has no intellectual merit at all.

The one big difference that I see with the Dutch languaged version is that here Stijn Calle (whom is clearly a big fan of Paul Belien, Brussels Journal and Vlaams Blok/Belang) has been permitted to keep stating his admiration. So much so that one can hardly take anything serious by him about any of these subjects. Bumbleb123 21:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the big difference in saying "the blog was set up to be an alternative" (who said?) and "the blog is independent". Why do you think one is more fawning than the other? In general this article brings quotes, while the Dutch version doesn't. For that matter, the Dutch version doesn't bring references either. I suggest if you feel this is too one sided, edit it. As for Belien's own opinion of his blog, I think it says something about the blog's aims, and is not used to "defend itself". It might be better, though, if this part is kept, to put it under its own headings, such as "blog goals". Something else which should be added is the connection to Vlaams Belang. Misheu 14:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is "Thomas Landen"? I mean, what's his real name? 38.115.185.13 (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Chicago

Moderate Muslims

The article says "However, a number of the articles published by the Brussels Journal on the issue were written in strong support for moderate Muslims, especially in Denmark, who openly opposed political islam".

I think that when BJ claims it supports whom it calls moderate Muslims, we should attribute this claim to the BJ, and likewise for the BJ claim that it opposes political Islam. We shouldn't say "Brussels Journal supports moderate Muslims and opposes political Islam", as a matter of fact, until we have third-party reliable source. Per, WP:SELFPUB, BJ can't be a reliable source for a claim that is "unduly self-serving" (i.e. that BJ supports moderation and is opposed to extremism) or a claim "about third parties" (i.e. that group A is moderate and group B is extremist).

Thus we attribute self-published claims.VR _talk 19:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It is already being attributed to BJ under the article for BJ. I don't object to rephrasing it or removing words like "strong" to keep in line with NPOV. But adding things like BJ "claims" is not exactly preserving neutrality which is covered well under WP:CLAIM. ~We simply report, without changing or adding our own sceptism, what BJ says, it does. And its articles do say that they support democratic Muslim organizations. Songofsirens (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

BJ can't decide what is a "democratic Muslim" organization, and what is "undemocratic". Nor can it decide who is a "moderate" and who is not. That is up to a reliable source to decide. BJ is not reliable. Even if it was, we'd still need a third-party reliable source due to WP:SELFPUB. Therefore we can say 'the BJ supports what it calls "moderate Muslims"' and not 'the BJ supports moderate Muslims'.

We can change the word "claim" to state, if that you makes you feel more comfortable.VR _talk 04:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well it is not about me. Using words like "claim" is a breach of WP:CLAIM. A policy. Songofsirens (talk) 09:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This edit is not appropriate. Many of the statements you make are either not in sources, or the BJ is not a reliable source on them. E.g. the BJ is not a reliable source for saying that "political Islam [is being accommodated] ... in the West, especially by governments and authorities as well as by the Left." What we can say, however, is that BJ "accuses Western governments and authorities, and the Left of accommodating..." VR _talk 04:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually they are per the statements made by BJ in their articles which we are using to source the article for BJ. We simply report. We do not interpret, change, define (i.e. democratic muslims) or explain. This is what they say. This is what we convey to the reader. And I fail to see how using a word like "accuse" is approrpriate. So there is nothing wrong with the revert edit I made. I strongly doubt you go around in all articles defining each parameter. In fact nobody does. It is also redudent to keep mentioning "Brussels Journal says" every single time. The logical deduction is that this article is on BJ, thus it's BJ's assertions. Until consensus exists for such not-unproblematic edits, I suggest you don't revert back. Songofsirens (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"However, a number of the articles published by the Brussels Journal on the issue were written in strong support for moderate Muslims, especially in Denmark, who openly opposed political islam."

This statement needs reliable sources. There needs to be a reliable source that says Khader etc. are "moderate Muslims". Even then, we attribute ('according to ____, ____ is a moderate Muslim). You can't go around calling certain people "moderate" and certain people "political" using unreliable sources.

I've replaced the text with "The Brussels Journal has supported Naser Khader, Kamran Tahmasebi, Fatih Alev and Abdul Wahid Pedersen, whom it calls "moderate Muslims"."

This neutrally presents BJ's perspective without making claims about Khader etc. BJ is not a reliable source on Khader (esp. on "self-serving" claims).VR _talk 04:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The article refers to a group of 700 people i.e. the group Khader initiated. Naming individuals is thus redundant. Nobody is asserting anything simply 'conveying' BJ's views and we don't go into every single article explaining, if somebody is moderate, islamist, fanatic, well-renowned etc. I am concerned, why you insist on doing it in this article because when reviewing some of your edits to other articles you neither attribute the claim to specific people nor do you resist using original research to source claims. BJ as a source is only used on BJ, not anybody or anything else. Interested readers can simply dvelve into the sources for details as is practice. Therefore I have reverted your edit at least, this can be agreed upon. Songofsirens (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You can't use BJ as a source on Khader. You can't use BJ as a source to say Khader is a "moderate Muslim".VR _talk 04:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The article did not mention Nasir Khader until you inserted it and omitted BJ's support for an overall group, the moderates. Khadder is only one of those people listed. So the only one bringing NK, and to source him being a moderate muslim is you. Why? Again we convey not interpret. Songofsirens (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Also, I would urge you to be cooperative in this process. I have been quite cooperative with you, and have let you add unsourced material to the article, patiently waiting for sources. However, if all I see are reversions on your part, then my patience will wear thin.VR _talk 04:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't threaten me. I am being cooperative and have engaged in a talk with you. FYI, I have explained my reverts in full and why some of your edits are of concern. But you didn't address those (see above), which isn't exactly helpful. Why not tag this article as OR and leave it to others on BJ to add sources. There is no unsourced information. They clearly use the word "moderate muslims" so thats what we convey. So understand that. Songofsirens (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Except Brussels Journal is not a reliable source on third parties. What part of that do you disagree with? We can say the Brussels Journal calls XYZ "moderate". But we can't say that XYZ is moderate and use Brussels Journal as a source.VR _talk 04:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Already addressed above. You list certain XYZ individuals (while I try to keep it general to BJ) and then you claim that BJ is used to source XYZ. This article is not about them, but BJ. IMHO you are not serious about this discussion as you keep evading my replies (along with other concerns) and repeat your questions. Wikipedia conveys it as it is. BJ says they support moderate muslims, so thats what we convey. If you read the section, this part is in reply to BJ being criticized by Knack. Balance would be great. Hence you are reverted again. Stop reverting. Songofsirens (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Of course I list certain individuals. Why on earth are you removing these individuals? Wikipedia is about being specific and not vague. Why would you remove specific facts?
        • Can you please read over WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. That someone is a "moderate Muslim" is a POV. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, such a POV must be attributed, not stated as fact. (Though there are some exceptions: if a lot of reliable sources call someone "extremist", wikipedia may as well too).VR _talk 23:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps to make this more clear cut, can you quote (exactly) the passage that supports the material you're including?VR _talk 23:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB

According to WP:SELFPUB, the article may not be "based primarily on such [self-published] sources."

However, in this article, 22 out of 33 sources are from [www.brusselsjournal.com]. This has to change, and the content must come from third-party reliable sources.VR _talk 19:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Well nobody is stopping you or anybody from researching and finding more external articles. Songofsirens (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, the editor who wishes the material to stay must find reliable sources.VR _talk 04:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

A tag will ensure that others may find sources rather than plain removal of content. Afterall, this is not a BLP which wouldn't allow unsourced information. I am concerned why you are removing rather than resorting to tagging allowing time. Songofsirens (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)