Talk:Bent Flyvbjerg

Untitled

This article looks like being written by the person himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melograna (talk • contribs) 22:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Most recent edits are by User:Sonderbro, who has been adding (self-)promotional material to many pages. 24.118.41.153 (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/

  Triggered by \bflyvbjerg\.plan\.aau\.dk\b on the local blacklist

• http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/index.htm

  Triggered by \bflyvbjerg\.plan\.aau\.dk\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

GNG

I'm not 100% sure this meets GNG. A relatively run-of-the-mill researcher, who hasn't received major coverage outside of his field, on a relatively niche topic?

Staggeringly, 20/25 references are written by the man himself! Couruu (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I suspect the man himself wrote more than just the references here… Foxmilder (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Accusations by GLP

Hello, I see that there is a bit of back and forth in the edits. I believe the following paragraph we had arrived at is accurate, nuanced, and doesn't go against BLP. GLP has their own WP page: Good Law Project and has been used as reference on WP. Could we otherwise discuss and agree on a revised text? In particular, what about the second sentence, is it too much primary source?

In January 2026, the Good Law Project reported that Flyvbjerg was accused of raping a junior female academic at the University of Oxford. Flyvbjerg denied all allegations and stated that the sex was consensual. The alleged rape had received previous media coverage, but Flyvbjerg had not been named.

References

Ping other recent page editors: Aydoh8, Hipal, Lynch44. ~2026-67683-5 (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Neither ref appears reliable for BLP information as far as I can tell. Goodlawproject seems to be self-published opinion. Poetsandquantsforexecs might be usable under circumstances that don't apply here. --Hipal (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and thank you for taking the time to discuss. I do not see how GLP is a “self-published opinion“. It is a British registered non-profit, with its own WP page that contradicts your statement. On this basis, I'm keen to keep the information that appear to be substantiated. ~2026-67683-5 (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

If you're unable to make a policy-based argument for inclusion, please leave this to others. A block or ban could result if you continue to revert without the required consensus. --Hipal (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I'm sorry but I'm afraid I don't understand your takes. I believe the source is not a ‘self-published opinion’ and I had added a secondary source too. I find the revert war quite frustrating given your lack of reasonable arguments. I appreciate that I'm contributing from IP, although anonymity is one of the core principles of WP's process and history. You also have no admin priviledge on WP:EN, and cannot block or ban someone---which makes me wonder why you are trying so hard to revert edits on this page. I have been consisently trying to find a just approach to add relevant information to this page, and I look forward to finding the right sentence. Is there one that would work for you? ~2026-67683-5 (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Please take some time to review WP:BLP. I believe it will provide answers to all your concerns. --Hipal (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Would you be able to make a more substanciated claim, or point exactly why GLP cannot be used as a reference here? I appreciate and value your time, and I'm happy to reassure you I have plenty of editing experience with WP rules, although I prefer to edit from IP these days.

I have made a new post on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Good_Law_Project,_primary_but_reliable? to get a third opinion. I won't revert further as we're quite deep in now, but would still appreciate a little more clarity from your side. ~2026-67683-5 (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

You've read BLP at this point? --Hipal (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Hipal that the given sourcing is not sufficient for negative or controversial claims about a living person. Woodroar (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I think there's a clear consensus here and on the noticeboard that we're missing more sources. Thanks again to you and Hipal for engaging constructively on this discussion. I will keep an eye out there and will be back if there's more in the future. I'm slightly worried about the history of self-promotion and sockpupetry on this page, and I think it would be good to be careful the day we have some more reliable sources. ~2026-67683-5 (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)