Talk:Johan Bäckman

Where does the anti-Jakobson stunt go?

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)

That would go into Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee, I suppose. Martintg (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Campaign against Jakobson is mentioned, "misanthropist issue" is as well important. --91.152.84.165 (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree :) Colchicum (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Propagandist

Here's an interesting aritcle:

• Õhtuleht 23 September 2008: Johan Bäckman on Vene propagandist

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)

Apartheid

While he doesn't discuss Bäckman in specific, Edward Lucas has analysed the claims of an apartheid system in Estonia:

• The Economist 16 August 2007: eSStonia, republished at [1]

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)

Lucas is notorious MI5/6 agent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.84.165 (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What is your source for this claim? If you have a source, is it reliable? Colchicum (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Once upon a time I read a very interesting book that explained how some people hear in their heads voices that tell them everything about the world surrounding them. It seems, sometimes the voices say that everybody around is a spy. Maybe it's something like that here? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Overview

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)

The article has been developed quite a bit. As it is, it works quite well. We don't want to over work it. Too many strange claims may saturate a reader's level of incredulity. Martintg (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think sections are not warranted for now, as hardly anything for what he is widely known is uncontroversial and is not activism. The open letter was a direct consequence of the publication of his book and should be in the same section, and the university's response should follow. What's the solution? No sections, I think.Also the information about his sypathies towards Taistoists has little to do with the demonstration and should go hand in hand with his ties to Teinonen (not in the lead, though). Please remove the heading "Controversial publications and pamphlets". It implies that there is something uncontroversial out there, and I am not convinced. Colchicum (talk) 12:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The strange actions of Bäckman can be clustered, as it turns out. For example, his claims regarding the murder of Ms. Politkovskaya can be considered separately from his claims regarding the deportations in Estonia. I submit that we should do that, in order to make the text readable.

As for the table, I guess it would be too unconventional. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What is a docent?

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)

By the way, what is your source for the English title of the book? Was it translated into English? Colchicum (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This is in the External links section: Finland washed with Anna Politkovskaya's blood

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. ----

Can you provide a source for your view? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

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.

• Lajunen, Lauri; Savunen, Liisa (11 February 2010). "Dosentin arvon englanninkielinen käännös" (PDF) (in Finnish). Suomen yliopistot – Finlands universitet – Universities Finland UNIFI. Retrieved 11 October 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Revoking the title of docent

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:

• "Yliopisto sulkee dosentti Bäckmanin sähköpostin". Helsingin Sanomat. 16.10.2012. {{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".

• "Диссиденты не хотят молчать". Rossiyskaya Gazeta (in Russian). 17.10.2012. {{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)

Reason why Finnish universities can not fire Bäckman is that he has no post or job in any of them. Title of docent is nothing but a academic title. Given that previously docent had specific teaching requirements in the universities and that Bäckman does not teach in any of the three universities it is not exactly surprising that universities are checking if revoking the title is possible. In other words it has nothing to do with academic freedom. Revoking email accounts for teachers who do not teach (or even have a post or job) at the university is hardly surprising either. If a docent had a tenure as a teacher at the university then he can be called as 'adjunct professor' but that has no actual relevance to actual posts of 'professor' or even 'assistant professor' which unlike the title of docent are actual positions in universities. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent sillyness

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)

Issues with the IP editing

• He is primarily known as a controversial author, not "in addition". As a "scholar" he doesn't even satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (academics). There are zillions of adjunct professors all over the world.
• Blogs, especially those associated with the subject, are not reliable sources and cannot be used to verify the existence of some letters by Raivo Aeg.
• Alexander Dyukov is a young crackpot and not a "famous Moscow historian".

Please anybody clean up after the IP. Colchicum (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Best would be to revert to the version before this IP started his total makeover. Närking (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the claim that he is still teaching there may have some merit, the sources contradict each other in this respect, but the rest is a total mess. Colchicum (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hufvudstadsbladet quotes the University's press release: "tjänsteförhållande vid universitetet eller får lön därifrån", which means he is not employed or gets any salary from there. Närking (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Most likely, the provided URL of the university's scheduling software is merely reflecting the plans from the year of the scholarly year, which was before Bäckman was replaced. University scheduling software is notoriously bad all over the world, for reasons that sociologists of computing are still trying to figure out. If the statement was made by human, I'd say it's more reliable than the possibly expired schedule generated by a machine.

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.

COI

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)

I am not "a major contributor to this article". My edists consist mainly of copyedists for readability, after major changes by an IP editor. My interests are in ensuring that the article does not breach WP:BLP. The IP may have a COI though. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. - And yes, I have removed the sentence about Max Jacobson. The cited source does not mention Bäckman. It is a breach of WP:BLP. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What's your association with the Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee and Johan Bäckman? Martintg (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, as an experienced Wikipedian and a close colleague of the anonymous editor, you could easily do two things:

• ask him who he is;
• explain to him Wikipedia's policies regarding editing articles about oneself or close colleagues.

For example, let's suppose I once worked at the Institute of Physics, doing polymerase chain reactions on their time servers and studying financial rocketry. Then, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to edit the article on the head of the Institute's financial rocketry lab. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:31, 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)

Maybe he makes different claims for different audiences, and couldn't foresee that somebody might put them together while attempting to write an encyclopædic article on him. Just speculating, of course. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Stopping in from the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, where a comment has been filed regarding this article. I invite all parties, especially new editors, to review the policy on Biographical articles and make sure all material is properly sourced. Additionally, in the interests of avoiding edit wars, please discuss any major content additions or removals here before adding or removing. That way we make sure we have a consensus that the material is appropriate. Finally, keep in mind that the COI guidelines on Wikipedia do not prohibit users with a potential COI from editing, provided that they follow the steps I mentioned above, and take extra care to stay neutral and get consensus for their edits. Arakunem^Talk 16:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Estonian security police officer Andres Kahar

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)

The references clearly state that Andres Kahar is speaking in his capacity as a commissioner of the Kaitsepolitseiamet. 20:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much representant of KAPO. It is interesting that KAPO officers are writing here their smearing campaign against Finnish and Estonian EU-citizens. It is very useful in my opinion to mention the name of Andres Kahar here, since he is the only person mentioned in this kind of KAPO commanteries. Perhaps international press can then call Kahar to ask him directly about Bäckman. --91.152.84.165 (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Please say why the name of Andres Kahar cannot be mentioned in Wikipedia? And aldo, please reveal your IP. Unless you are Andres himself. --91.152.84.165 (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If I was Andres Kahar, I would say that I am speaking on behalf of KAPO, not expressing any personal opinion, just like Jamie Shea was speaking on behalf of NATO during the bombing of Belgrade. Martintg (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Martin, let's reveal our IPs to финский ученый Йохан Бекман, what do you think? But I am worried about his health, when he learns that the KAPO has already taken over the Earth. Colchicum (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I neither confirm nor deny my IP address is 195.80.106.49. Martintg (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder, WP:BLP applies to Mr. Kähar, too. Wikipedians can't just make up his biographical details as they go; anything potentially controversial about him must be duly sourced. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 05:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Security police as a source?

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 is just your personal speculation and synthesis: you are saying Kahar is Bäckman's opposite number in Estonia, therefore since Kahar is speaking for KAPO, and KAPO is the opposite number to the FSB, who are you suggesting Bäckman is speaking for? It is generally accepted when a report mentions "Fred Flinstone of Bedrock Corporation says..." or "Barny Rubble, commissioner of Police, says..." these people are talking as a representative of the organisation, not expressing a personal opinion. Martintg (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfounded speculation. Kapo has revealed its assessment in important public security matters several times, and while it tends to err towards secrecy and avoid influencing ongoing cases, these assessments have regularly been vindicated. In other words, Kapo has a good track record of reliability. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 05:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Kapo of course is not reliable source at all and has clear conflict of interest in this case. A Kapo officer is probably editing also this article - they made some comments here without indicating their I.P. number. --91.152.84.165 (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean me? Normally I am approximately 1,500 km away from the KaPo headquarters, and Martin is in another hemisphere. Colchicum (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Length of this article

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)

This should follow Wikipedia policies, and nothing more. Per Wikipedia:Article size this "article" has always been perfectly ok. In fact, it could easily be twice as long. If Mr. Bäckman's opinion pieces were strange and he preferred to publish them in yellow press, this cannot be helped. We shouldn't whitewash the facts. There were no repetitions, by the way, and I find the stuff very diverse and interesting. By the way, you'd better provide us with references to scholarly reviews of Bäckman's publications, so far I have failed to find anything significant. Colchicum (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The claim that "Bäckman has published his opinions in yellow press" is absurd. No person is responsible of articles written by other in yellow or another press. Author is responsible only for articles written by himself. The sources show that Estonian press has published several sensational articles about this person. These are not objective source by no means. There are no references to his own writings. This article is clearly edited by hostile Estonian nationalists violating the interests of Estonian republic. This problem is reported to the Wikipedia moderators and will be handled accordingly. --91.152.84.165 (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL. What about this and this? What about In my opinion speaking or writing of Soviet "occupation" should be criminalised as a form of racist propaganda. I demand five years prison sentence to everyone who dares to say Estonia was "occupied" by the Soviet Union? Has it been renounced? He is not responsible for his own words, right? Fine. Noted. What about some unfavorable Russian and Finnish press he got in 2002? Hesari and the Finnish Foreign Ministry are also not objective? By the way, let's get real, obviously he has publications in that damned undemocratic Estonia. Tarbeinfo is based in Tallinn. Don't waste your time, the illegitimate deletions will be reverted (though legitimate additions may be spared). And I am as similar to an Estonian nationalist as Bäckman is to a slim girl, by the way. Colchicum (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Both links you mention are clearly not written by Bäckman himself. The first article is seemingly a translation, the second is written by a journalist at APN. You should check his bibliography which is available publicly and look, if he wrote something about Estonia. Everything that is written in the press is not realiable. They are written by journalists, not himself. The article in the first link seemingly is not in his bibliography. His interviews in newspapers might be interesting, but not realiable. There are plenty of yellow press in Estonia and Russia. Primary sources are stuf he wrote himself. Nobody is responsible of stuff the journalists wrote. --91.152.84.165 (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work this way. It cannot and will not rely on primary sources and self-promotion. Colchicum (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not rely on primary sources? That is something I cannot believe. I will report your "opinion" to the moderators of Wikipedia. Unbelievable, that you deny the relevance of primary sources. Seemingly in your opinion the world should be defined according to yellow press. Congratulations!--91.152.84.165 (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking forward to see the reaction of those moderators. WP:PRIMARY. Now, many different journalists say the same about Bäckman. Who should I believe? The anonymous IP or the lying journalists? Colchicum (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Estonian yellow press smearing campaign and Andres Kahar from Estonian security police

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)

Is Helsingin Sanomat Estonian yellow press? Is Hufvudstadsbladet Estonian yellow press? Is Карельская губернiя Estonian yellow press? Is Центр Политических и Социальных Исследований Республики Карелия Estonian yellow press? I guess everything except for Bäckman's own writings and Channel One of the Russian TV is Estonian yellow press, right? Colchicum (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Helsingin Sanomat is THE mainstream medium in Finland. Johan Bäckman (popular nickname Batman) is a tragic figure of shame and ridicule, some kind of remnant of finlandization (which he is himself too young to really remember), perverted anachronistically beyond recognition. I've only seen Mr. Bäckman in documentaries about Russian media and random internet articles where his amusing statements are presented. His audience is the Russian public, and his job is to present Kremlin propaganda as "foreign expert opinion". That is a job he probably is quite good at, since he's still paid to do it. --Sigmundur (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

As a connoisseur of conspiracy theories, I find the idea of Estonian yellow press having infiltrated Finnish press both white, pink, and Swedish rather curious. Is the theory available in a printed form so I may study it? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 05:15, 1 April 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)

Well, actually this is what the article looked like before his intervention. Colchicum (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is such thing as real-life trolls. But very few of them are scholars, and if a scholar wants to troll people and maintain scholarly reputation, he'd better be damn good in what he does. If you're a mediocre scholar, your reputation will go out as the trolling campaign progresses. Consider Duane Gish, for a classical example. Once upon time, he was a reputed scientist. Alas, that time has long passed ... Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 05:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Bäckman-Teinonen relations are not sourced to Kapo

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)

Bäckman-Teinonen-"relations" was "reveiled" in Eesti Ekspress, nationalistic newspaper, strongly promoting neo-nazi ideas. The problem was that the source mentioned was person called Andres Kahar. He is notoriously well-known smearing campaign expert. This should be mentioned. The security police of Estonia is not a security police of a democratic society, but of apartheid society. --91.152.84.165 (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP reminder

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)

• Well, there is a subtle difference between the phrases "According to Johan Bäckman Max Jakobson is a Neo-Nazi" and "Johan Bäckman is a Neo-Stalinist". The first provides a negative opinion of a person (that obviously has marginal views), the second states a negative opinion as an established fact. It is also highly unlikely that people would form their opinion about Jackobson based on the Johan Bäckman wikipedia article while it is quite possible that the opinions of Johan Bäckman would be influenced by the article as it is on the top (or soon will be on the top) of the internet search engines Alex Bakharev (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, frankly, I haven't yet understood the drastic change in the IP's style of writing that occurred today (headings like "Smear campaign against Max Jakobson"?!). Apparently his frustration mostly concerns the content of the older articles he wrote himself. It looks like he is/was ashamed of them. Colchicum (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't rush to conclusions. Maybe he thinks orchestrating a smear campaign is something to be proud of. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but we should correct it anyway. He is also a LP, and considering his litigious habits it may be dangerous. Colchicum (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi

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)

On March 31, 2009, in one of his blogs Johan Bäckman referred to the English Wikipedia article about him

OK, but what does he say about it, most of us don't speak Finish :) — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, (un)fortunately you can read the same thing above in English :) Colchicum (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

For translation people can use google translator :) — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Colchicum, please do cut-and-paste the passages from his blog here, regardless of the language they are in. Dc76\^talk 15:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Press freedom

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)

Navbox

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)

• Stalinism's rebirth in Finland, by Heiki Suurkask.
• The double neo-person from Finland, by the noted writer Jaan Kaplinski. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

An opinion piece and a blog? Fails WP:RS. Óðinn (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. An overview report -- Suurkask is a journalist, dontchaknow -- and a writing by a reputed critic of society and former Estonian MP.

But perhaps, do you have another reason for opposing the navibox? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 14:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a card-carrying member of the web brigades. BTW, which part of "never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person" escapes your comprehension? As for Suurkask's piece, no matter which kind of doublespeak is used to describe it, WP:RS still applies. Óðinn (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you have admitted having nefarious purposes, it seems pointless to continue this discussion. "Doublespeak" may sound nifty but makes a lousy argument. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Not as lousy as your attempts to circumvent existing policies :-) Óðinn (talk) 16:48, 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)

Based on uncited sources - this is brilliant! :-) Óðinn (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't exactly cite a personal discussion with a historian friend, or a panel debate from a politics club, can I? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh-huh. I was once walking in a forest when one of the Huldufólk popped up from a rock, as is their custom. As it turned out, he was digging a tunnel from Iceland to the Faroe Islands, but took a wrong turn somewhere and ended up in Canada. He was so grateful when I gave him directions that he told me all about neo-Nazism in the 21st century. Especially, pertaining to the Baltic states. I should create a template sometime based on this valuable and irrefutably accurate information. Óðinn (talk) 07:48, 11 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

I agree the Navbox looks like a witchhunt — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Bäckman's blogs have mostly opinions of stalinist and/or communist people (for example Oili Suomi, Communist Party of Finland (1997) [4] and Antti Siika-aho, League of Communists (Finland) [5]). But on the other hand: Bäckman refused to be a Candidate for the Communist Party of Finland for couple of reasons: he is orthodox-christian and secondly he is not really against modern capitalist Russia, though Bäckman critizes Finnish Kokoomus-party [6]. So I would not write that Bäckman is neo-stalinist. I think his opinions are by the offical Russia (pro-Putin). And as I have wrote before (and I write again), his opinions are far from the Finnish mainstream and do not really get any echo (except with a handful of communist). Peltimikko (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Bäckman may not be in the Finnish mainstream today, but his opinions differ little from the ones most Finns had 20, even 15 years ago. He is just about old enough to have held these opinions all the the time, making him a traditionalist and "neo"-nothing. In fact the rise of anti-Bäckman opinion may be even newer than that. Only some three years ago I insisted that the article on the Karelian question clearly states that issue only exists on the fringes of Finnish politics. I am no longer convinced of this. These irredentist demands for the "return" of Karelia seem to have entered the mainstream? (updated) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can find a source to prove your assertion, this must remain in the realm of personal opinion. On the other side we have two published sources that claim his ideas represent a neo-stalinist viewpoint. As to the so called "Karelian question", than is largely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Martintg (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean that if we have two sources that call Ilves a fascist, we can include it into his article? --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course not. Where'd you get that silly idea?

NPOV does not depend on mechanical source-counting. NPOV is reached through a sophisticated set of calculations involving analysing the Big Picture, processing available data, weighing different sources (and paying careful attention to the difference in the sources). If it could be done mechanically, don't you think Wikipedia would've fired all those editors long ago? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course not? Then why it is ok to commit this BLP violation on this page? --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Having glanced a few internet resources on this Bäckmann affair, I've got the impression that we aren't really dealing with a communist/stalinist (Petri can help us further when sketching an ideological portrait of Bäckmann, I think ;-)). It is IMO rather a case of 'pathological Russophilia': who ever is in charge in Russia, is to be honored and glorified. True, he isn't clear cut Russian chauvinist either (we know good examples among our Wikipedia colleagues who were, right?), but combines it with 'antifascism' more typical of Western far-left (see also Peltimikko's opinions above). --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

There is no Johan Bäckman with DOB of 18 May 1971 in the Estonian Register of People Prohibited from Entry. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Related: [7] Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Estonian and an eager apologist for the Soviet Union

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)

It sounds like a succinct summary to me. Certainly, some of the alternatives I could think of are way clumsier. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 00:25, 30 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)

Docent it not exactly "future professor hopeful". Maybe some docents want to be professors, but mostly they are (semi-)independent researchers, authors and lecturers. Peltimikko (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

POV-pushing

[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)

Deportation, expulsion, etc

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)

Expulsion is fine, I think. Deportation is also commonly used for this concept, but it has a confusion potential in this context here, so we should avoid it. "Sent out" was just my clumsy attempt at translating the Estonian legal term. "Removal from the country" is another translation, probably slightly better.

As the Estonian proverb says, a good child has many names. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 06:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion

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)

Summary of Teinonen?

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.

I don't have a reference other than Estonian wikipedia but he seems to have given up Estonian citizenship and regained Finnish one in 2011. An order (medal) he had been awarded in Estonia in 2001 was taken away by the Estonian president in 2009, the reason being improper behaviour (showing up with this medal on a neonazi party). source Lebatsnok (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

WP:NEEP is related to sources where an ethnic epithet is used to case doubt upon the reliability of said source, so I don't think WP:NEEP is really applicable the case of Teinonen. Martintg (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. Perhaps we should consider the applicability of WP:UEEP as well in this article. Offliner (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If you were going for onomatopoeia, why not WP:WEEP? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing secret about Risto Teinonen being a (neo-)Nazi or his relationship with Bäckman. All of this is explicitly and verbosely described by Bäckman in his book Pronssisoturi, in chapter Naamiaiset available on-line here (Translation into English by Google). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Remarks on Anton Salonen

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)

I understand that you're a new user, so I won't WP:BITE.

Wikipedia has a set of guidelines of notability, which you can find under WP:N. The first rule is significant coverage. Is there significant coverage of Bäckman's claims of this topic? Another important rule is independence of the subject. Have Bäckman's views on this affair been discussed by independent notable agents?

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)

WP:N is irrelevant here. The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people.

The only requirement for comments on a notable subject is that they should come from a notable, reliable source. Bäckman is notable expert on these kind of affairs, and his blog is a reliable source for his views. The question is, are his comments on Anton Salonen's case relevant enough to his own biography? Offliner (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Bäckman's blogs handles hundres of issues (fascist-Estonia, fascist-Latvia, fascist-Finland etc.). But his single opinion deserves only to be published in the encyclopedia, when some media has published it. I have not seen any articles in Finnish media, where mr. Bäckman has been quoted. Peltimikko (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Bäckman's views

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)

Notability. The article is not a soaprack, to be updated every time Bäckman utters something. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

So what makes the views of Bäckman that I just added non-notable, and those ones that were added by you and your friends earlier notable? Offliner (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed those bits because Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a vehicle for political advocacy of any kind. The article already mentions Bäckman view about the "apartheid regime", the additional material was just repeating and amplifying that position. --Martintg (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

His views are currently not discussed in detail. I think the additions clarify his position and provide more info. Using citations is a good way to go, as then we can see what he actually said, without a middle layer. In any case, such removals of relevant, well-sourced content should only be done by consensus, and not by unilateral removal. Offliner (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is about what made him notable, for example the protests, not a platform where he can advocate on his views in detail. --Martintg (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

His views have been covered by reliable sources; thus, they are notable. Are you the one who decides how much detail we should give them? Offliner (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

According to RT, Bäckman is now a REAL professors (nope, just a one of 10.000 adjuncts (see: Talk:Johan_Bäckman#What_is_a_docent.3F). And at least the book “The Bronze Soldier” shares the feelings of Finnish academic world (or not, his controversial views are supported by none). Bäckman is a expert and adjunct professor (yes in criminology, with no academic value for example in history). “Estonia has an apartheid regime” (this is Bäckman's own theory supported by Hietanen and Krohn, and... and who else? Maybe some Finnish historian... none.) Dear Estonian and Russian friends: There are a lot of REAL academic historians in Finland, who deserve to be listened (but they are not so mediasexy). Peltimikko (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but Bäckman is adjunct professor on the sociology of law and criminology, and he wrote a thesis in political history as well, so he has enough knowledge to make statements about Estonian "apartheid". Adjunct professor is also a professor in English. --91.152.84.165 (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but the offical translation of the word "dosentti" is "adjunct professor" See: [12] Suomen dosenttiliitto (Union of the Finnish Adjunct professors). And where is this thesis? And what is the scientific background of the concept "Estonian apartheid"? Peltimikko (talk) 11:28, 28 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)

Anton demonstration by Bäckman

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)

I guess nobody told him that it is possible to pay people to demonstrate. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wording of the lead is OR

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)

Because Wikipedia is not the right soapbox to promote petitio principii fallacies. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not the place to publish WP:OR, which the current wording of the lead is. Offliner (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Human rights of Estonia not relevant?

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)

If you can find a reliable, third party, non SP source which says that Backman is a "human rights" activist then maybe it would make sense to add. Otherwise it doesn't belong here.radek (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Human rights in Estonia contains information about the alleged discrimination of Russian-speakers. Can you please tell me how that information is not relevant? Offliner (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Because this is an article on Backman?radek (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So according to you, there should be no linking to other articles at all? Offliner (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Vote count

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)

Helsingin Sanomat, YLE etc announced the un-offical results right after the election 7th June. The offical one is done Helsingin vaalipiirikunta (translation something as "The voting committee of Helsinki district") and it was announced after the re-count in Wednesday 10th June. The offical results are in www.vaalit.fi and here it the link to candidates [16]. Peltimikko (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Good. Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 11:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Declaration on Max Jakobson by Bäckman

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)

Wikipedia needs to be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and anything that's not compatible with the principle should be simply removed. Anything that's based on self published sources should be removed without any discussion. There are more things other than the examples given by Peltimikko above that have been referenced to blogs in this article. All of those "things" need to go, and there is no need to discuss it, blogs as refs are not acceptable on Wikipedia.--Termer (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. It's best to keep the untold numbers of various blogs out. They do nothing but serve to muddy the waters needlessly. Anything important is already available in better sources such as newspapers. Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 11:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversial

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)

I agree. But it seems that attempts to fix this issue always get reverted. Offliner (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a smear campaign against Bäckman by some anti-Russian elements. This is dangerous for Wikipedia. The whole article seems to be very strange. There are some selected elements from the yellow press. Of course he might be controversial, but should we say that all his books are "highly controversial"? That statement seems to be strange and not reliable. Why university professor's all books should really be "highly controversial"? Also the claims in "counter-intelligence assessments" are really strange. It seems to me that there is a campaign against this person by some circles that are anti-Russian. And that is not the issue for Wikipedia. Somebody should review this article. --91.152.84.165 (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that his books aren't scientific works - they are self-published personal diaries where he usually presents his opinion without any arguments, evidence or citations. Do attempt to read one of his books - during my academic career I read quite a lot of scientific books and probably thousands of scientific articles, none of them were anything close to Bäckman's writings about politics. -- Sander Säde 19:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

His bibliography presented in this article includes several books, only one of which seems to be a political pamphlet. Five books have been published by scientific research institution - you have to be kidding while saying they are "self-published personal diaries". Obviously you did not even read this wikipedia article! Probably it is true that SOME of his books are non-scientific opinion material and SOME are scientific books. If a person is academic professor, he also published scientific works. Hoever sure he is controversial. --91.152.84.165 (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

His bibliography presented in the article is not full, it misses the Bronze Soldier book (Pronssisoturi: Viron patsaskiistan tausta ja sisältö), for example. Bäckman is not known for his scientific works (although, I've understood that some of them are somewhat controversial as well), he is known for his highly controversial claims and books. As for the reliability of those others as a source... well, "Saatana saapuu Helsinkiin: Anna Politkovskajan murha ja Suomi" is published by "Russia Advisory Group", which permanently "under construction" website registered through GoDaddy's anonymization service; "Pronssisoturi: Viron patsaskiistan tausta ja sisältö" is published by Tarbeinfo, which is owned by ex-KGB officer. Make your own conclusions. -- Sander Säde 21:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Therefore he has published two political pamphlets, but his bibliography at least on this article includes also five books published by research institutes of Finnish ministry of justice and Finnish Police academy. This means, he has published BOTH political pamphlets and scholarly works. He has to meet scholarly standards, if he is a professor. Dr. Google does not say he would be "known of highly controversial claims and books", on the opposite. But seemingly he has published both controversial political provocations (?) as well as scientific works. --91.152.84.165 (talk) 21:20, 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)

There is no such word in English as "docent", which is also professor, without constant salary, "adjunct professor". --91.152.84.165 (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)--91.152.84.165 (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually... you really might want to consult a dictionary before making such claims. Might help to avoid embarrassment in the future. And no, docent is not a professor. -- Sander Säde 08:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Docent is adjunct professor. That is, professor as well. However, not "full" professor, but adjunct. --91.152.84.165 (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Expulsion

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 needs editing

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)

Wikipedia articles can only exist if the subject is notable. It is the media coverage that makes him notable, take away that media coverage and the rationale for keeping the article ceases to exist. --Martintg (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This article seems to be strange collection of yellow press rumours. It needs some editing; wikipedia article should not be a collection of yellow press rumous. --91.152.84.165 (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Victims_of_Estonian_political_repression

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)

Kapo

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)

You are violating WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL principles, not to mention a lack of sourcing. "rather aggressive", "Some of the claims resemble conspiracy theories", "Estonian security police against Bäckman". Please familiarize yourself with core Wikipedia rules, right now your changes are definitely for the worse - and I will revert them again. Please do not restore them unless you are able to find sources for your opinions. --Sander Säde 09:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well at least the title should be changed into "Estonian" counter-intelligence, since there is no other commentaries against Bäckman. Another issue is that the whole article is rather long and unclear, and it should be summarized somehow. There should be also a specifi reason not to mention Andres Kahar as the only official who publicly criticized Bäckman. --91.152.84.165 (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the section name - I will add another source, as strangely right now one of the KAPO sources seems to have gone missing. --Sander Säde 09:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not see any Kapo souce, but Estonian press sources referring to Kapo. Kapo is also not only counter-intelligence. --91.152.84.165 (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

General problems of the article

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 delivers false information about Bäckman

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)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS - Helsingin Sanomat, a very highly regarded Finnish daily, is a perfectly acceptable source for Wikipedia. Also, stop personal attacks or you will be blocked. --Sander Säde 19:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Helsingin Sanomat is not always a reliable source. Peltimikko has caused problems earlier as well. The problem here is, that Peltimikko quoted Helsingin Sanomat wrongly. The paper did not write that Bäckman moved himself into marginal. That was not correct quotation of the opinion written in Helsingin Sanomat. However, the fact that Bäckman is in the marginal or not, is perfectly read in this article in the whole, without Helsingin Sanomat. --91.152.84.165 (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Quotation saying that Bäckman moved himself into marginal is wrong translation from Helsingin Sanomat. Saying that somebody's father is a "director" of a company, is nonsense, since that company has dozens of former "directors", and this information is not reliable for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.84.165 (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Actual post of Erkki Bäckman in Hartwall was "toimittusjohtaja", which I would translate "managing director" or "general manager", perhaps. If you have any other translation issues, then ask on the talk page, do not censor the article. It seems you have not seen the whole HS article, just the online part. --Sander Säde 19:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And easy - from the Hartwall home page, toimittusjohtaja is indeed Managing Director. --Sander Säde 19:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no such word as "toimittusjohtaja" in Finnish. --91.152.84.165 (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Saying that Bäckman's father "was" something is incorrect and not clear information. --91.152.84.165 (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition, Helsingin Sanomat did not write that Bäckman moved himself into marginal. Incorrect quotation is deleted. If somebody can read Finnish, they can put correct quotation. --91.152.84.165 (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Saying Bäckman moved himself into marginal is strange, if he is the most well-known Finnish person in Russian media. However to say he was some sort of Russia scholar, could be mentioned in the Russia-part of the article. --91.152.84.165 (talk) 19:48, 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.

--Sander Säde 19:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And may I add a point. There are also other Finnish media which is critical against Bäckman, for example Aamulehti [21] "Bäckmanin saaman mediajulkisuuden epäillään kytkeytyvän Venäjän tavoitteeseen lisätä vaikutusvaltaa naapureissa.", Iltalehti [22] "Historian väärentäjien joukossa liikkuu jälleen Johan Bäckman.", Iltasanomat [23] etc. Peltimikko (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Most popular searches

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)

Sänder Sade and Bäckman article

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)

Sänder Sade is vandalising Wikipedia

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)

If you would have bothered to check, you would notice that I've re-linked all the sources - and they work fine now. Please stop this repeated deletion of material from this article. --Sander Säde 08:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the correct way to point out non-working links is to use {{BLP unsourced}} or {{Dead link}} templates, not to delete material from the article. Please do so in the future, instead of deleting material you've previously tried to censor. --Sander Säde 08:42, 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)

Oh noes! No one will be smart enough to connect anon vandal and freshly registered user doing the same deletions! You admit that the material is now linked and available... and yet you keep deleting the material that displeases you. Who is here the vandal, exactly? --Sander Säde 08:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

yes, I am not pleased with material with a) non-existing links, b) false information. There is lots of that in this article. --AntifascistFront (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sänder Sade is Estonian activist, he is member of Estonia Wikiproject etc. Bäckman is well-known critique of Estonia. The fact that Sädner Sade is vandalizing Bäckman article should be investigated by Wikipedia. --AntifascistFront (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Who the heck is this "Sänder Sade" you keep ranting about? Or "Sädner Sade"? I don't see them having edited the article at all.

And if "non-existing links" display, strangely enough, the articles about activities of Bäckman, then they are not "non-existing", are they now? And what exactly is "false", I see the material exists in those sources just fine. Perhaps you should try reading the "non-existing links" before censoring the article?

--Sander Säde 09:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"Controversial"

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)

This removed content was a bit more detailed and better written and should be restored if we can locate the additional detail as the appropriately sourced material I just added supports all these characterizations of Bäckman's position. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"Controversial" revisited

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)

Persona non grata

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 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)

If you care to read the source, it confirms Estonia's declaration of Backman's persona non grata status:

" Kristina Leer, the representative of the Estonian Ministry of Internal Affairs, confirms that Johan Bäckman has been declared persona non grata in Estonia. "

The lead is meant to be a summary of the article, the text "and persona non grata[1] in Estonia." is therefore a proper summary of the section "Expulsion from Estonia". --Nug (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is incorrect. First, only foreign diplomats can be declared persona non grata in Estonia: see the relevant law: Välissuhtlusseadus. Bäckman has no diplomatic status. What has been applied to him is a temporary refusal (denial, whatever is the correct word) of entry to Estonia. Bäckman has appealed this in court and has won once - the denial of entry was cancelled by the court. (Source: Eesti Ekspress). Later in 2011, another temporary denial of entry was applied (Source). This is not what persona non grata means. Helsingin Sanomat must have gotten something wrong - as the same person (Kristina Leer) they cite, has elsewhere (source) explained why a permanent denial of entry can *not* be applied to Bäckman. So, sorry, but your favourite sentence is plain wrong ... but I'm not going to delete it again as I have no time for this game. If you're convinced, feel free to delete or replace it by something like "has been denied entry to Estonia several times". If not, do whatever you like. :P Lebatsnok (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The term "persona non grata" has a broader usage and meaning beyond the narrow diplomatic. In general it simply means an unwelcome person, and that is the context used here. Non-diplomats are declared "persona non grata" often enough to be common usage: Comedian Ramon Bautista declared persona non grata in Davao City, High-profile expulsion: Declan Walsh declared persona non grata, Montenegro: Serbia's orthodox priest and lobbyist declared persona non grata, etc, etc. --Nug (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure but this 'broader' usage should have no place in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should say things as they are without artificial unnecessary embellishments. When you just mean "not liked", say "not liked" or "unwelcome", don't say non grata. When you mean "expelled for several times", say just that, not "non grata". Or if you think the broader, metaphorical use of "non grata" is important enough, then edit the respective wikipedia article [Persona non grata], adding the meaning you want to be there, provide that other editors agree etc. Currently, what it says about non-diplomatic use is: "In non-diplomatic usage, referring to someone as persona non grata is to say that he or she is ostracized. Such a person is for all intents and purposes culturally shunned, so as to be figuratively nonexistent." This is again not true about Bäckman. How is he ostracized if he's not even here? I don't really care, this is a minor issue etc, I just don't understand why you want to insist on figurative ("broad") use of language in an encyclopedia. And why you want to insist that this little fact (being denied entry to Estonia for a few times) merits mentioning in the lead section whereas others, in my view more important ones (being persona non grata sensu stricto in Moldova, or claiming to be something like an ambassador of Ukrainian separatist regions in Finland) are not there in the summary section. But whatever, this is a minor issue over a minor figure. Lebatsnok (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The term "Persona non grata" has the two valid meanings[24], the corresponding Wikipedia article has two sections to correspond with the two meanings: Persona_non_grata#Diplomacy and Persona_non_grata#Non-diplomatic_usage, though that is poorly written and will need improvement. The non-diplomatic usage is equally valid, lots of organisations and countries keep blacklists of people they deem "persona non grata" and block they entry into the organisation or country temporarily or even permanently. --Nug (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

References