Talk:Thomas Bjørn

Last name

There seem to be a lot more web hits for "Thomas Björn" than "Thomas Bjørn" - are you sure this move is correct? Are they just different ways of writing the same letter, or what? sjorford #£@%&$?! 15:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm certain. Thomas Bjørn is a Dane. Golf is a relatively small sport in Denmark, compared to Sweden, so it is likely that Golf news go that way. The letter 'ø' is pronounced like the letter 'ö' in Swedish, and o-umlaut in German, and they all share a common heritage. It is common to substitute one for the other when translating names, especially if your keyboard doesn't contain the right one. And keyboards with support for umlauts are a lot more common than keyboards with support for the Danish/Norwegian letter ø. Nonetheless, we sometimes write Bjørn Borg in Denmark (for the Swedish tennis player) for the same reason. However, it is considered preferable to use the native version when technically feasible.--Per Abrahamsen 16:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Righto, support then. sjorford #£@%&$?! 20:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Danish letter for Danish name. – AxSkov (☏) 09:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. Dragons flight 04:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2018

Please change the text within Personal Life from:

Bjørn has three children, Filippa and twins Oliver and Julia with his former wife Pernilla. Bjørn currently resides in London.[8] Perth-born air stewardess Dagmara Leniartek had a five-year affair with Bjørn. Bjørn initially cut relations with Leniartek and denied he was the father of her daughter. However, Danish media reported a DNA test had subsequently proved Bjørn was the father of the child – a girl named Isabella.[9][10][11]

Bjørn is a football fan and a keen follower of Liverpool F.C.. Alongside football he also states his other interest to be movies.[12]

It should say:

Bjørn has three children, Filippa and twins Oliver and Julia with his former wife Pernilla. Bjørn currently resides in London.[8]

Bjørn is a football fan and a keen follower of Liverpool F.C.. Alongside football he also states his other interest to be movies.[12] 193.240.177.139 (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: You've given no reason why you are requesting the removal of cited information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@193.240.177.139:, on my talk page you wrote: As to adhere to the BLP policy, material displayed cannot be poorly sourced - the information displayed about Mr Bjorn is purely speculative as the text points out; “Danish media reported”. The claim that Mr Bjorn also “cut relations with Leniartek” is unsourced and therefore potentially libellous. I'm copying it here so that all editors interested in this article can see this discussion in the same place.

Your reasons for removing this information show mistaken interpretations of Wikipedia policy and of legal standards. In fact, by claiming something is "potentially libellous" <sic> you are yourself coming dangerously close to the no legal threats policy.

To address the substance of your points, however: The affair between Ms. Leniartek and Mr. Bjørn is documented by the current sources within the meaning of the BLP policy: When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. The affair is documented by not only the Danish celebrity magazine Se og Hør (which certainly counts as a source likely to be challenged) but also a major Perth, Australia daily and the venerable and certainly reliable Times of London. Notably, the Times story makes no equivocation about the affair: The Dane, married with three children, ended their five-year affair and initially denied paternity of the child but DNA tests proved he was the father. Similarly, an otherwise-reliable source using the phrase "However, Danish media reported ..." does not suddenly convert it to speculation. The editors and publishers of that story are still taking responsibility for what they print and would potentially have to answer for printing it so they are still exercising editorial control.

Finally, the definition of "libelous" is not: "I don't like it" or even "I don't like it and I don't like the sources." For a statement to be libelous, it must be 1)actually wrong and 2)actually injure one's reputation. In the case of a public figure such as Mr. Bjørn, the statement must also be made either knowing it is wrong or in reckless disregard of whether it is wrong or not. This affair is cited to sources that give us good reason to think it is correct, it is arguable whether this actually harms his reputation in this day and age, and the sources given show that we have exercised due regard for the truth or falsity of the matter.

I hope that explains why I declined the edit request. Thank you for your concerns and for contacting me. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)