Talk:Jan Guillou

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Man, The Myth, The Legend[edit]

Guillou is a weird guy and a left wing eccentric. This article has taken all his eccentricities to the fullest. It sure isn't fair and balanced. It is so obvious that the main writer of the article really cannot stand the guy. I have read most of his books, I my political views lean towards the right, I vote for Moderaterna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderaterna) but I still think this article paints a too negative image of Guillou.

Decidedly.

Arcsoda (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

Does anyone know the correct pronunciation of his name? --Iceager 01:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For those who can't be bothered with deciphering the phonetic writing someone put on the page, it's Jaan Gijoo.
Meaning, Yaan Gee-YOO. Hard 'g'.
His first name as Swedish, his last name as French. (If the IPA listing is correct.)
Varlaam (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Books[edit]

The list of books seems to be incomplete.

I would also like to have a thorough description about which books have been translated into other languages.

I've been trying, withuot success, to find out whether the first Hamilton novel, Coq Rouge, has been translated into English. I do believe some of the later ones have, though (which seems strange). Also, the list is incomplete, as Guillou has written a science fiction novel for young adults, about an intelligent space ship and an Earth girl, trying to control the ecology on an alien planet but failing miserably (this novel exists in Danish translation).--Peter Knutsen 13:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coq Rouge[edit]

"Guillou destroyed the character (after reports that Swedish neo-Nazis had taken him as their role model."

I removed this part until someone can verify it, I can't seem to find any Swedish source that agrees, not even the Swedish Wikipedia lists this.

Obli 19:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish neo-nazis do (or did) view Hamilton as a role model. A tough, macho character ready for action. They were also, obviously, unhappy about his political stance. Guillou said something very similar to this on Danish television, a bunch of years ago (1998, 1999 or perhaps 2000). --Peter Knutsen 14:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listed as a terrorist[edit]

Does anyone know what made him listed as a terrorist in the US? I assume it has to do with the IB Affair, but perhaps it's worth mentioning on the page. KDLarsen 01:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the reason, but apparently Guillou was a member of the palestinian terrorist group DFLP during the late 60s. This according to a book written by the former Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden Per Ahlmark.
The label "Terrorist group" is highly questionable for an organisation of which a Swedish membership were nothing more or less than an international friendship and support agreement - just as a membershiop in the pro-Vietnamese FNL movement was a solidarity act - not a participation in any armed battles. The mentioned Per Ahlmark is knowned as one of swedens most pro-israeli politicians. (submitter: J N citizen of Sweden, contemporar with Guillou)
Per Ahlmark is a joke as a political pundit, he's probably the closest we have to Norman Podhorets, though slightly less influential - and it's thirty years since he was an active politician! It's his favourite pastime to brand people "terrorists", "stalinists" and "fellow travellers" for the simple reason that they don't share his holier-than-thou trust in the projection of US force. /83.254.156.207 (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DFPL has committed several acts of murder against Israeli civilians, see for example the Ma'alot massacre. So yes, it is a terrorist group by all definitions. /Slarre 16:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guillou reputedly claimed in articles written by himself and published in FiB that he participated in raids on the West Bank.

This page needs to be (re-)edited![edit]

The only -- yes, the only -- purpose with this "article" is to make Guillou appear like an anti-semite, which he isn't and never have been. The connection with Radio Islam is totally irrelevant, just to mention one example of this biased "article".

Wow. Talk about fanatic and twisted. Besides, Guillou admits being an anti-semite. He compares Israel with the repressive regime in South Africa, he says openly he wants to see Israel destroyed - he says this openly. So what more do you want? (Personal attack removed)
I think the article has a few other points, but certainly Guillou has said and done a few controversial things (including his connection with Radio Islam) that need to be mentioned, then let the facts speaks for themselves. If Guillou isn’t anti-semitic: fine. His own words won’t show him to be one then. Rune X2 21:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Facts never speak for themselves unless you have all the facts, which would be impossible in an encyclopaedia. Hence, the selection of facts becomes critical when attempting to give an honest representation of a subject. Reading the article, I get a clear sense that it contains little but cherry picking. Since I am obviously not the only person with this impression, I am adding a POV banner. Grahn 13:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - I also think that the trivia should be removed or changed. As it is now, it's nothing but "Look here christian americans, ooh he has a lesbian daughter and he is an ateist!!111". Neither his religious belief and that his daughter is in a registered partnership with a woman is important. Ran4 15:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the POV banner. It was added in February, much work has been done since then, and the reasons for the banner are a bit vague, yes? The only example given is the Radio Islam. Please be specific in what is the problem here, and reinsert the POV banner, then we get to work on it. mceder (u t c) 18:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political views[edit]

Renamed from "Controversial views" since they are not particularly controversial.HumanR

"Guillou has been accused of anti-semitism and is on record as having complained that the Jewish family of Bonnier is slanting the media towards a pro-Israeli stance." Whoever claims that this is true needs to come up with a reference. HumanR

That Guillou has been accused of anti-semitism is common knowledge. Just like it's well known that he is attacking organizations that combat revisionism in regards to the Holocaust. Regarding his attacks on DN and the Bonnier family for slanting the media, I've read it personally several times in his columns. He has made the slur on the DN as "the smuggest daily" a trade mark of his authorship.

Book about Iraq[edit]

I removed the paragraph about a book about Iraq that Guillou had co-authored in the seventies. This article should have information about the well-known books by Guillou, not some book that no one has heard of and that might exist in the archives of a few libraries in Sweden. That paragraph did not make this article more informative, and was probable only intended to malign Guillou, by something naive he wrote about Iraq 30 years ago, before Saddam Hussein came in power. Battra 01:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The book clearly merits mention since the opinions expressed are so controversial and he apparently not afterwards has repudiated them. Not least in the light of his subsequent work with the Middle East, and his moral critism of others of what they have written in the past. Besides it helps give background to the person, like Guenter Grass’s nazi-past which was even further in the past. Rune X2 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the opinions expressed were nearly as controversial at the time as they are today. I can also see nothing to indicate that Guillou holds these views today. As it stands, I suspect the article gives a clearly slanted or even mendacious description of Guillou's current views regarding Saddam Hussein. If the book should be mentioned at all, the section should be shortened significantly and Guillou's current views should be described as well. Grahn 13:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you feel mentioning this is any more suspect that the mention of Guenter Grass’s nazi-past? Both are authors. Both have continued to involved themselves in the controversial subjects. Nobody suspect Grass of having Nazi sympathies anymore. But whereas Grass's history is based on a short period when he was 17, whereas Guillou's was a book he wrote when he was adult. Can you imagine anyone having written a book praising Hitler or Nazi Germany and this been ignored, because he since had changed opinion? Rune X2 14:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it from the section "Books" to the section "Controversial Views", hopefully that will remove some of your concern. Rune X2 17:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the part about his Iraq book since it's only there to smear Mr. Guillou. It's clear that this is malicious misinformation since Saddam Hussein didn't come into power until 1979 while the book was published in 1976. It's disturbing that people use Wikipedia for this type of misinformation and smear campaings. HumanR

Saddam Hussein was still vice president and de facto dictator of Iraq in 1976. /Slarre 21:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what? It seems that he was a General in 1976 and became Vice President. Why is this relevant? Is Iraq of the 1970 the same as Iraq of today? In the 1980's he was supported by the US since he fought Iran. HumanR
The fact remains that Hussein was still the de facto dictator of Iraq when Guillou wrote his book, and the Iraqi regime was already notorious for its massive human rights abuses (persecution of political opponents, torture etc.). Guillou's apologetic descriptions about Hussein and the Iraqi dictatorship has caused him considerable criticism, so it definitely has its place in the article. Also, remember that this article is about Guillou and not the US government, so that argument is completely irrelevant for this discussion. /Slarre 23:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. You seem to claim that Mr. Guillou was a supporter of Saddam Hussein. He has as far as I am aware strongly critized that regime. Why do you claim the opposite. Please provide a reference if you still claim that.
2. Were those human rights abuses known at the time? Please provide a refernence for that.
3. The comment about the US approval of him is relevant since he was not seen as bad at the time by western observers and governments. Things obviously change over time. HumanR
May I ask if you have actually read the book? If you haven't then perhaps you should do so first, as that's quite basic for the discussion we're having here. I have a copy of it right here and, as said, it contains several apolegetic comments about the Iraqi regime and about the dictator Saddam Hussein. Whether those comments make him a "supporter" (or "ex-supporter") of Hussein isn't up to me to decide and that's not what I, or the article text that you keep removing, say either.
And the statement that Hussein "was not seen as bad at the time by western observers and governments" may be true in some cases, but it's still based on the fallacy/spurious relationship-argument that "B (some western governments) approved of A (Hussein) so that also explains/exculpates C:s (Guillou) approvement of A", which is completely irrelevant. /Slarre 00:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me congratulate you on having this over 30 year old book in your possession. It has been out of print for several decades and is available in only a few libraries. Moreover, it has never been published in other languages than Swedish, in particular not in English. This is clearly not a central book to Mr. Guillou's production so I again question your motives for including this. In what way is this relevant?
Why do you not want to answer the questions I posed to you? Please do so.
There is no "fallacy" or "spurious relationship". I offered you an explanation why somebody at one point in time might have a different opinion than at a later point in time. I continue to argue that atrocities were either not existent or not widely known at the time. In either case, Saddam Hussein was a Western ally up until the 1980s. As far as I can tell, Mr. Guillou has condemned Saddam Hussein for decades. If you claim otherwise, please provide references for that.
Again, please explain your motives for including this large section that is largely irrelevant. I suspect you have political motives and that you dislike Mr. Guillou's political opinions. In that case, please address those point where they have some relevancy.
Lastly, it is interesting to compare this Wikipedia article in English to the one in Swedish. The Swedish one is relevant to Mr. Guillou but this one appears to be there to smear him. Why would you like to have a larger discussion in this English article about a book that has not even been published in English than in the Swedish article? HumanR
First, let me point out that I didn't add the information about this book to the article. I just responded to your obviously incorrect claim that Saddam Hussein "didn't come into power until 1979" when he was in fact the de facto dictator already in 1976. Also, I find it quite remarkable that you keep arguing with such conviction regarding the content of a book that you obviously (as you didn't answer my question) haven't even read.
No, this book is not a central work of Mr. Guillou, but due to the considerable controversy that it has caused him I think it merits at least a mention in the article (albeit not in an own section with all the quotes listed, those rather belong to Wikiquote). The current version of the article is just fine. /Slarre 20:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the book. I never said I had not. HumanR

I'd like to point out while Guillou's book may not be central for his work it is typical. There are on average at least one factual error per five pages in it, and the fact that they are always on the same side of the argument leaves very little room for the theory that the errors are unintentional. The entire message of the book is to praise Saddam and his rule as enlightened. I find your claim that we shouldn't make the connection since Saddam wasn't in command at the time as spurious at best; Saddam is the leader that is constantly extolled and a idolizing photography of him is included in the book to drive the point home. Most of the world at the time recognized the fact that he was the real power in Baghdad and not the formal President, whom I believe was his uncle (and afraid of him). Equally spurious is the claim that Saddam was an Western ally. In 1972 he signed a friendship and assistance treaty with the Soviet Union, which - together with its allies - was the dominant arms supplier, which BTW also is evident in Guillou's book which extensive details Saddam's cooperation with the USSR. The many human rights violations of the Iraqi Baathist regime are detailed in many books, Sluglett's "Iraq Since 1958, From Revolution to Dictatorship", ISBN 1-85043-317-8 is perhaps the one most commonly quoted. There are many more. As for your claims that Guillou has denounced Saddam, I find it extremely questionable and suggest you back it up with references. Finally, I'd like to address the argument that Guillou was naive. At the time he was 32 years of age, far beyond the point where youthful innocense can be invoked as an excuse. It is also evident from Guillou's book that he read Rohde prior to his journey to Baghdad, so there is no room for the claim that he was unaware of the Baathist connection to the nazis. In fact it even surfaces - twice - in Guillou's book, first when he refers to the "historical hero" Rashid Ali (one of Hitler's allies) that returns after years in exile and when Guillou admits that Mein Kampf was published in Iraq. Guillou makes a song and dance on page 231 in which he makes the dubious claim of having objected to it.

Quotes and references[edit]

I removed this:

In [1977] he declared in an interview with the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet: "I am optimistic, I believe Israel will cease to exist before Armageddon."

Because it is a quote without a reference. This is a living person. Er. Also, several of the current references are now unavailable since Aftonbladet has made Jan's columns part of their online Plus part - i.e pay us or dont read J.G columns. How do we deal with that? It is VERY important to back everything in this article up with references. mceder (u t c) 22:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't have removed it. It's quoted everywhere. And he didn't say "Armageddon" either. Guillou is a rabid anti-semite.

Critiscism of the Israeli occupation[edit]

See [1]. The UN has a higher authority here. Saying that "the territories aren't occupied according to Israel" is like saying "Iraq isn't occupied because the USA says so". The Palestinian territories are occupied, fin. Quotation marks and "so-called" is petty bias. --Servant Saber 00:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should take a look at the articles West Bank, Golan Heights, Western Sahara, Tibet, etc. for some examples on territories claimed to be occupied by one of the two disputing parties. Wikipedia does NOT describe the view that the "Palestinian territories" are occupied as a fact, so neither should this article (if you wan't to challenge this then you should rather bring it up on those articles' talk pages instead). It's also fun that you mention the UN and Iraq, since according to the UN Iraq is not occupied (the multinational forces are there on a mandate both from the UN and the democratically elected Iraqi government). /Slarre 15:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Guillous atheism noteworthy?[edit]

He's an atheist. So what? Lots of Scandinavians are. At the very least the article should explain that explicit, open atheism is common in Scandinavia, so as to not give foreign readers the impression that Guillous atheism makes him stick out in a crowd (lots of other things do, obviously, but not that).--Peter Knutsen 14:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC) I agree VsanoJ 16:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree, might as well mention he's a heterosexual while we're at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.148.119 (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added the information about his atheism in the first place and readded it now (with further details) before viewing this discussion page. Remember that despite explicit atheism is fairly common in Sweden (~23% according to Eurobarometer 2005), atheists still stick out in the international community; for example English Wikipedia. Look over the List of atheists, there are a few Swedes included there (Guillou included), they should not be delisted just because atheism in common in Sweden when it is relatively uncommon in the rest of the world. For the same reason should the information be included on English Wikipedia and because it has an influence on his works. -ramz- (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The line about " non-fiction works contains critique of prominently Christianity" should be reworked if mot excluded. His fictional character Arn Magnusson is a deeply religious christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.182.109 (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The KGB affair[edit]

I suggest his KGB connection hould be moved to a section of its own in the latter half of the article. This is a matter that will continue for some time - he's already promised to add a chapter about it to the paperback edition of his memoirs, and there could be a paper hunt at the FSB - the KGB's successors - in Moscow. The current placing of this stuff makes it look like it's the most important fact of his whole career, and that view of course is a blatantly political judgment. Especially as people keep coming in and throwing about unsubstantiated speculations and rewrites of the tabloids. Moreover, that kind of thing violates the WP directive on biograohical articles on living persons. We don't really know yet just how far those activities stretched, and vituperation (as opposed to stating of unfavourable facts and widespread criticism) towards living persons is not accepted on Wikipedia. /Strausszek (talk) 11:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody really cares what he adds to his "memoirs". He's been outed all over the world, condemned by Peter Bratt - when will enough be enough?
OK, a separate section for the KGB recruitment issue has been added, which makes room for future developments. The KGB issue has created a media storm, probably the biggest in this author's career. It is therefore an important and notable aspect in his biography. Please do not add unsourced material--speculations and information without proper attribution will be deleted as per WP:verify. Best, SJUPadin (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The KGB affair is the hot spot at the moment, that's where people are going to walk in and toss about allegations straight from the tabloids or from their own minds. But before you start cutting everything else that's not attributed to a source and which is not controversial in nature, I suggest you should take a look at the reference list as it stands now. Just about every single footnote relates to some specific controversy or a news story where word was pitted against word and where he was in hot water. The basic outlines of Guillou's career and of his political and literary outlook are completely unsourced. That's very typical of this kind of article, and why? Because "controversy titbits" is the stuff that's easiest to source. When people land in a media controversy or want to make a particular point, they write articles or give interviews and make precisely that point, stated so no one can miss it. This is no match to source, provided it got into print, or even better, went online at a major site.
It can be much harder to source statements about what education a guy has, whether he had this or that political persuasion at a given time, or how something was widely perceived. Particularly if those things should not be sourced from what person X has said or written himself, but from an "objective" third party text. Very many people who have been writing about the IB affair were involved in it themselves, directly or by belonging to some organization that was involved. So it's much more time-consuming to provide "WP sources" for statements such as "Guillou doesn't have first-hand experience of the kind of agent life he describes in his books", "Guillou has often urged against racism and right-wing populism", "The IB affair divided Sweden" or "Guillou often emphasizes that a reporter must check his facts". But those kinds of statements can be overall more important than a headline quote such as "Homosexuality is just a vogue thing" or "Åsne Seierstad lied about the people in her book, but she still claims to be a reporter".
Most of the time, there's no way statements about how a career has developed long-term, or the fields a guy is focusing on in his writing, can be sourced as quickly as a physics fact like "the speed of light in space is 300.000 km/second" or "a solar eclipse happens because the solar disk is covered in the shadow of the moon, seen from the earth". If something outside of the controversial sections - right now, mainly the KGB affair - is not going to stoke controversy, looks likely and is biographically meaningful I suggest it should be left some time to source. People aren't always sitting in a well-stocked research library when they're writing for this site. /Strausszek (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guillou works for a tabloid and calls this type of press coverage "real media" reports (as opposed to "new media" coverage)---In this case, it would be difficult argue against him and insist on an exclusion of the tabloid coverage of the story since his relationship with the KGB was actually exposed by a tabloid. It was reporters from a tabloid who did the investigative journalism series and exposed the KGB relationship. The daily press and Swedish television are in fact quoting and referring to the tabloid stories in this case.
Re: "People aren't always sitting in a well-stocked research library when they're writing for this site". That's why {{sources needed}} tags are useful. They may attract the attention of people who do have access to sources and are familar with the literature in a particular subject. Wide-ranging or universalist speculations with claims such as "X divided a country/a continent/the world" or "homosexuality/bisexuality/etc is in vougue somewhere", will definitely need to be sourced, here as elsewhere on Wikipedia. SJUPadin (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my point wasn't that verifying would be the same as the editor here actually *proving* what he writes. No one has asked for autonomous proof. But when you write about physics, chemistry - or about the number of tracks on a rock album or the names of the actors in a film - it's easy to compile a WP article that won't ever be challenged, because the books or online pages one is working from are about something that's all served as "raw facts". Nobody has reason to contest what a chemistry textbook says about the structure of hydrocarbons or the half-life of a uranium isotope, because that kind of knowledge is not going to change in a thousand years and is not won, even in part, by interpretation. So once it's included in WP it's "safe".
But in most human sciences, letters, social sciences, politics - even in the world of computers, because they are made and programmed by humans - things are not always stated as raw facts like that and knowledge isn't always purely deductive. So the kind of knowledge you find in any handbook or encyclopaedia or even a newspaper report in those fields pretty much always includes several steps of original synthesis, a choice of the questions you make, the people who have been spoken to or who are supposed to be reading it - you don't write the same way in a magazine and in an academic dissertation, you may not even be putting the same questions. That makes it much harder to source many of the kind of statements you want in order to give an outline of somebody's life, give some coherent idea how and why he wrote this or that book, went to jail, emigrated, made a coup d'etat, made a million bucks, or became prime minister. The same with any historical event as soon as you move beyond a bare list of dates and places. At least if it has to be sourced without explaining and filling out by your own synthesis. Many wikipedians evade this quandary simply by "sticking to reliable sources" but that's just pseudo-science, leaving the weighing of facts and methods to somebody you want to parrot uncritically. Almost certainly those reliable sources will be at odds at a hundred points - then what? /Strausszek (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not our job here to "give an idea of why somebody wrote a book", or "fill out by our own synthesis", or to create less "pseudo-science" by not "parroting sources uncritically" and by not "sticking to reliable sources". I would recommend bringing your concerns about what you see as WP's "quandry" to this discussion page. Objections to WP's WP:verify and WP:NPOV policies are best dealt with on a more general level, rather than on an individual article discussion page. Also, please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ---your concern that "there is no such thing as objectivity" appears to be the most common objection to the neutrality policy and has therefore been dealt with repeatedly already. SJUPadin (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering you're almost totally new here - you only just returned after a false start a year ago - you're not exactly showing good faith in other members - see The Five Pillars. And if you want a Wikipedia full of bare-bones articles I suggest you bring that to some dedicated page for discussing what Wikipedia is about.
Besides, you're miles off target if you think I'm arguing that "there is no such thing as objectivity". What I am arguing is that truth (and understanding of a subject) isn't always as easily compilable, and doesn't always jump straight from the raw facts, as it appears to do in e.g. textbooks of natural science (which are the "model case" for science and verification that some WPans implicitly point to). /Strausszek (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All I have asked is that you do not add unsourced and contentious material to the article. Your personal feelings and other irrelevant issues will not change the need for citations and fact checking here, I'm afraid. SJUPadin (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

only "an attack on U.S. imperialism"[edit]

It would certainly be relevant at that point to include bin Laden's own remark contrasting Sweden, specifically, with the US.
Varlaam (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Education[edit]

"He then went on to study for two years at the Solbacka boarding school in Södermanland from where he was also expelled.[6] "

The source dosen´t say he was expelled. There is an swedish auther Paul Frigyes who claims this but Jan Guillou say this is a lie... Here is a video when Jan show Paul his final grade that he claims prove that he didn´t get expelled http://www.svtplay.se/klipp/1713185/guillou-kraver-att-boken-stoppas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.239.103.132 (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

False impression[edit]

The article is mostly POV. In reality, Guillou is a very paradoxical figure in the following sense:

  • He is a convicted spy (IB-affären).
  • The military loves him, including the intelligence service. He had a long personal relationship with Birger Elmér (chief of IB back then). He is an unquestionable Swedish patriot.

What he did back in the 1970:s was to clear up a political mess where a political party used the intelligence service as their private intelligence service. Then proclaiming that he is anti-American is decidedly false. He is pro-American - just read his books, he just doesn't shut up when the Americans on occasion fuck up. But I too react towards him rarely criticizing events in the Islamic world (he does, just not very often). He is not in favor of all stupidities, but he probably feels that the Arab world receives enough bad criticism as it stands already and says little. YohanN7 (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jan Guillou/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I editet the first sentence.

Last edited at 11:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 19:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jan Guillou. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated pictures[edit]

Time for a refresher amongst the fan-art here.

Arcsoda (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jan_Guillou&oldid=1207478680"