Talk:Björk

Archives
May 2003 – June 2006

Björk removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

Björk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because the article fails to cite its references. --Allen3 ^talk 12:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding bisexual issue (see section "Bisexual who?" for details)

{{RFCbio}}

• First RfC comment: I see no discussion on this topic, but honestly I don't need it. The principle is simple: Wikipedia does not interpret information, it reports it. So unless Björk has declared herself bisexual and that declaration has been published/broadcast by a reliable third party, she cannot be called bisexual at Wikipedia. If she has declared that she is bisexual and that declaration has been published/broadcast by a reliable third party, then she can be called bisexual at Wikipedia. See WP:ATT and WP:BLP.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that settles the issue. I'm removing the category. Asarelah (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur. We need legitimate resources that'll support and prove that Bjork is bisexual. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 04:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Might I add that this is an unimportant matter without a reliable sources. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Closed. See above. Requires RS. If you think that "I think everyone's bisexual to some degree or another; it's just a question of whether or not you choose to recognize it and embrace it. Personally, I think choosing between men and women is like choosing between cake and ice cream. You'd be daft not to try both when there are so many different flavours." defines her as bisexual, think again. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Question?

Are Telegram and, for that matter, Drawing Restraint 9 official Bjork releases?

Yes (Elektra) & Yes (One Little Indian US). - BalthCat 05:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

- Can someone tell me why there is no reference to her ripping up the picture of the pope? Surely anti-Catholicism or at least anti-papism is a bigotry that she possesses that needs to be addressed. It would likely be written 15 times at least on the pope's wiki if he ever possessed the kind of hate that Bjork has and ripped up a picture of her. Also I think this hatred is well expressed by her viciously attacking a journalist just for being annoying. Surely Wikipedia is meant to give an honest, unbiased account, not serve as Bjork's fan club site.

- There is no reference to this because it wasn't her..... it was Sinead O'Connor that ripped the picture on Saturday Night Live, not Bjork

- Please inform yourself before saying things like that. It was Sinéad O' Connor who tore the photo, else it would be here.

Björk as an instrumentalist

Does anyone know what instruments Björk plays, and if she plays them on any of her solo records? I know she played the flute in her earlier days, but I have no idea how much she plays these days. Damiancorrigan 12:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

As you know, she played the flute on her first album (1977), was the drummer in an-all girl band called Spit and Snot, then she played the piccolo flute in Exodus (besides singing, of course), sometimes the keyboard in Tappi Tíkarrass, the harpsichord (“Síðasta Ég”) and flute (“Glóra”) in The Elgar Sisters, and the clavinet in Hljómsveit Kóraðs B (The Band of Kónrað B)… and I have a picture of her playing the guitar with The Sugarcubes.

She took accordion lessons when she was 5 and finished 10 years later graduating as a classic pianist (I forgot, but she played the piano in “Sonnets / Unrealities XI”, song from Medúlla). Luis María Benítez 21:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction: She played the piano in "Ancestors". "Sonnets/Unrealities XI" is pure a cappella. 125.162.3.41 06:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

pronunciation

At the top of the article, we have Björk Guðmundsdóttir (IPA: ['pjœr̥k 'kvʏðmʏnstoʊhtɪr]), which is roughtly a "kvuth", while later down in the article, we see "gwuth". So which is it? -lethe ^{talk +} 16:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "roughly"; [k] is unaspirated like English 'g' and unvoiced like English 'k'. Icelanders tend not to hear the difference between Icelandic 'g' (IPA [k]) and English 'g' (IPA [g]). But I'm not a big fan of these pseudo-phonetic transcriptions anyway. Haukur 08:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So the "g" is used to indicate an unaspirated [k]? Yes, I guess I've seen that done before. Thank you for explaining. -lethe ^{talk +} 09:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There is also (to the English ear) what sounds like a soft /sh/ sound between R and K, which I am guessing accounts for the O.E. beorc becoming birch.

Incidentally, beorc/björk is the letter B in Futhorc, which with Gyfu (X) is to be found in the logo for Bluetooth.

Nuttyskin 03:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the former IPA has a "v" sound after "k." Is this correct?—Tokek 00:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The word guð ("god") and words derived from it are actually pronounced as if they were spelled *gvuð. Haukur 13:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I added my reading of her name in an .ogg file. Haukur 13:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! —Tokek 00:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Small inconsistency

The account of the incident with the reporter in 1996 has a small inconsistency: The article says Björk has a daughter and "also has a son, Sindri Eldon Þórsson, born June 8, 1986". No other sons are mentioned. When the 1996 incident is mentioned, the article says "... Björk emerged from her aircraft at Don Muang Airport with her then five-year-old son...". Clearly the boy was nine or ten years old at the time, or the child involved is a different one. 132.192.14.232 17:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You were correct! Sindri is her only son, and this has been cleaned up. Somewildthingsgo 08:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Stalker

I'm no Björk expert, but didnt she have a stalker who conspired to disfigure her with some sort of book that would spray her with hydrochloric acid? i remember seeing a news magazine story about it. he kept a video journal of everything he did...--Atticus2020 07:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Check the "Personal life" section. The info's already there. 惑乱 分からん 22:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I didnt read it too quickly. I assumed it the incident would have its own section.--Atticus2020 00:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Other Songs or Releases

Would it be worth noting songs such as Venus As a Boy, which was used in Leon: The Professional? Are there other such songs? Jimcripps 04:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, Björk album songs also featured on movie soundtracks? 惑乱 分からん 22:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A audio file would help.

I am not very fluent with the IPA, so the IPA spelling only makes pronunciation even more difficult. I think it would be much more helpful to insert a sound file of someone pronouncing her name. -67.41.245.198 15:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Even easier is just to say that (approximately) the name is Be York but instead of O there is the sound of the oe in Goethe.

Nuttyskin 03:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Then they have to know how to pronounce Goethe as well... - BalthCat 05:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

actually, it's pronounced "Byerk."

- it's not Be York, It's roughly Be Ork

Platinum records

By definition the standards for Platinum status are based on the population of the country assigning it, it's the same for Canada. Unless Iceland has even lower standards than other nations of its size, I don't see the point in the section I removed. It seems to imply that Iceland's standards are weaker, not proportional. We would also have to go looking through other gold/platinum status artists from other countries and start qualifying their accolades as well. No point. I'm simply linking to platinum album so that people who don't know might find out themselves. - BalthCat 17:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Bisexual who?

On this page, she talks about bisexuality and here she has been labeled as a bisexual person. Well, I think there has been a misinterpretation when she talked about “her women and men” in her life. She was talking about the people she worked with. At least, this is the idea you get after reading those lines. From what I know, all her sentimental relationships were with men. Also she never said she was bisexual. I don’t want to remove the category because people will jump on me thinking I’m against this or against minority groups or something like that, but I’m just saying that this has been clearly misunderstood. Regards, Luis María Benítez 15:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I had actually already removed the category when you wrote this comment, for the same reasons as you just stated. --Sindri 11:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea that it was only her colleagues. She explains clearly that some of the relationships could be labelled romantic, that she believes all people are to some extent bisexual, and that she would be stupid not to try 'the other flavours' (aka women). I don't see how you take that to mean only familial love, or the love of friends and respected colleagues, when she clearly uses the word "romantic". I admit that I am not sure I want to revert the removal, because I don't know whether it was said in passing fancy or whether it encapsulates her idea of romantic love. However, to say she means she "loves her chums" is really a stretch. A person can be bisexual without having ever had sex with, or having been in a relationship with a person of the same gender. Would you tell a man who has fallen in love with men, and claims he is homosexual, that he is not homosexual because he has never had a partner in love or sex? - BalthCat 04:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The use of the word “romantic” doesn’t necessarily imply any formal relationship or sexual preference, above all when the interviewee is Björk. She has some sort of “poetic way” of talking and uses varied metaphors, unusual comparisons and rather informal expressions which are sometimes hard to describe. I have a Spanish book called Björk, Colección Imágenes de Rock, N°82 by Jordi Bianciotto (Madrid, Spain 1997, Editorial La Máscara - available here) and from page 54 to 59 there is a chapter which contains definitions by Björk. These definitions (or sections) were taken from different interviews, but unfortunately none of them are properly credited on the book. So, here I write down excerpts taken from the following 2 sections (which could be of interest here): they are titled “Love” and “Sex” (mind that I’m translating from Spanish).

“Love”: she says “I was born to be in loved. When I’m not, I can’t eat nor even sleep. I stare at the food and think it’s crap. For me it’s like wood or coins. It’s more important for me to love than being loved. I’m obsessed with it”, then she adds “I think I have a character that turns everything into love (...) I believe I’m an ordinary and stupid person whose only way to relate to everything is by means of love (...)”.

“Sex”: here she says “in many ways, writing a song with a guy is far more stimulating and erotic than having a sexual relationship”, she adds “people are so narrow-minded that think sex only exists as a hardcore thing. But everything can be sexual, from putting your sucks in the morning, to buying milk, laughing or talking through the phone. Although I hope nobody misunderstand what I mean and write ‘Björk is a sexual maniac and has an orgasm every time she bites a toast!’” She continues saying “I’ve always been like a man. I started to play with bands when I was 11 and I couldn’t withstand boys because they were stupid (...), but when you find someone who’s different, it becomes into something special, even more than friendship. And the same happens with the sex thing”.

Well, as you can see she puts love everywhere. And certainly on the interview on Diva she said “you would be stupid not to try 'the other flavours'”. She didn’t say “I would be…”. I don’t deny her words and it’s OK you mentioned this on the biography. But I would like to read something like “yes people, I swing both ways” on behalf of anyone who could be labeled as bisexual. But this doesn’t seem to happen there. Actually, nowhere.
Of course, I agree that a anyone can be bisexual without having been in a relationship with a person of the same gender, but I think Diva wants to brag about having another celebrity on their side, or someone supporting their cause.
Some of her expressions might get you on the wrong way and wonder what she means, but that’s how she talks. Also in other quotations featured on the book I have (and others) she talks about music, and all her passions and friends in a similar way referring to them as “romantic relationships” or “love affairs”. This could sometimes lead you to a misconception.
I also remember when she was labeled a bipolar person. Where were the facts supporting that? Was there any doctor who officially diagnosed her personality? If not, unless publicly and widely confirmed, I don’t think she could have been labeled as such either. And I mean that for any biography. It’s interesting though, that this biography lacks some of the most known facts and yet it contains categories based on unverified affirmations. Some of them, totally new for long-time fans and friends. Luis María Benítez 15:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, which is why I included... "I don't know whether it was said in passing fancy or whether it encapsulates her idea of romantic love" in my response. However, if she puts sex and love in all things, who are we to tell her that it is not real sex or love? Does she not define sex and love for herself? Is she not the one who defines herself as bisexual, and not us? I have also read her lyrics, and so I *do* have some insight into how her mind words from her expression in song. It provides context to read her lines and interpret them without going "haha she orgasms while eating toast", for example. I don't believe I've made any misconceptions from her quotes. I believe she believes she experiences things differently. But, romantic love (her word) *does* include sexual desire, as well as emotional intimacy, so to say a relationship is romantic means it *does* have at least some sexual element. And 'romantic' *was* the term she used. (Which for her is perhaps easy to achieve, since she has sexual socks.) This is why I believe you are overly dismissive of her words and think "sex has to be a hardcore thing". What is it going to take, a lesbian encounter? Why are we not taking the words out of her mouth instead of rewriting them? And again, you can be homosexual, or bisexual, or heterosexual without ever having hard a partner in love or body, so this talk of "formal relationship" is off, however romantic DOES imply some sexual preference. - BalthCat 21:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, the category is OK with me. I don’t complain at all! But if you said that didn’t know whether this was said in passing fancy or whether it had a further meaning, probably it would be better to say what’s already been written on the article: that she “has shown openness to bisexuality”. But labeling her as bisexual, mmmm…. I don’t know. But please, don’t get me wrong: I didn’t mean to question your interpretation of her words. Finally, I’m not being dismissive, what happens is that when I saw the category I just wondered why this has never been mentioned anywhere else, I mean: irrelevant details of her life are spreading throughout the Internet, but no one about this (up to that moment). That’s all. Kind regards, Luis María Benítez 14:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think Bjork is too wonderful not to be a little bit bisexual. Some of the greatest women singers have been and I'd put her up with Billie Holiday, Bessie Smith and other immortals. But then Bjork is like a force of nature. You wouldn't talk about a mountain, an earthquaker or a tidal wave being bisexual would you? Then again they are hardly hetrosexual either. Just a thought.SmokeyTheFatCat 21:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that she shouldn't be catgorized as bisexual unless she actually states clearly that she's bisexual. A few ambigious statements like those above don't make her bisexual, and categorizing her as one is potentially libelous. Asarelah 18:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and removed the material again after an anon replaced it. I couldn't find on Diva's website archives anything about this and a simple websearch also didn't turn it up. I'm perfectly willing to have her words reinstated with a proper citation from Diva, but until then or failing any other reliable sources that material should remain out of the article per Bios of Living Persons. That means that anyone reintroducing it failing to provide proper sourcing can be reverted without fear of the three revert rule. as a gay man myself I think it would be very nice if she was bisexual... Syrthiss 00:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you're aware that she said she thinks EVERYONE is bisexual, so why would she exclude herself? Man, you Wiki Nazi's are incredibly annoying. She could write a song saying how she likes to have sex with women, and you would say "Oh..she didn't come out and say she's bi", so what, she hinted at it at a great length. Oreo

The guidelines Wikipedia set out for biographies of living persons says you should only mention the religious/sexual views in the article if "The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life". swidly 04:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to mention that even if she did writing a song about sleeping with women, it wouldn't neccessarily make her bisexual. Johnny Cash sang "I shot a man in Reno just to see him die", but that hardly makes him a murderer. Asarelah 16:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

She said the word "Personally", and "I", when discussing this issue. Asrelah, no, but would Johnny sing about having sex with a man? She's bisexual, note it or not, but she is. Oreo

Exactly. She goes to the trouble to make a statement about her bisexuality (probably because she thinks homophobia is ridiculous and wants to support gay rights) and people have the nerve - are patronizing enough - to silence her. She is as much bisexual as she is Icelandic. Restore cat. MerriFunn (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The BLP guidelines state clearly that the subjects sexual orientation is not to be included in the categories unless particularly relevant to the subject's public life. Personally, I couldn't possibly care less if Bjork is bisexual or not. I am neither biphobic or homophobic and I resent the implication by you that I am trying to "silence" Bjork. I have no agenda other than the creation of a good article which conforms to BLP guidelines. One statement about bisexuality does not constitute relevance enough to her public life to warrant inclusion into the category. We have argued this to into the ground, and if you read this discussion, you will see some very compelling arguements (from a gay man, no less!) against the inclusion of the category. I have had enough of this, and I will ask an administrator to intervene in this issue if it is pressed further. I hope this is the end of this matter.(Edit: Okay, in reterospect perhaps I overreacted there in threatening to get an administrator. I am merely frustrated and angry about this issue and I apologize)Asarelah (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree as well. It is as relevant to her public life as her statements about Tibet. JenAW (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

She makes one statement and suddenly its as relevant to her public life as Melissa Etheridge's? Were the huge waves in the media about it the way there were was a huge uproar about her statements about Tibet? Does she march in pride parades like Rob Halford? Did she pose in a lesbian erotica magazine like Beth Ditto? Did this revelation make the cover of People Magazine the way it did when Lance Bass came out? The answer is a very, clear, unambiguous "NO" to all of these. Even if you draw the conclusion that she is bisexual from the statement, it simply is irrelevant to her public life according to the BLP rules. I am sorry if I come off as tempermental or irritable, but I am just plain tired of arguing about this. Asarelah (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The statement (read it) says very clearly and very directly that she thinks everyone is bisexual - a fortiori - she herself too. Secondary coverage is relevant to nothing at all. The statement is relevant to her as a person, her as a performer, and the perception of bisexuality/homosexuality in society at large. If Hilary Clinton made the same statement, that would be irrelevant and wouldn't be in her article? Perhaps being a public figure is not enough, you have to be running for the presidency. There is something called Bisexual erasure and you are indulging in it. MerriFunn (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Your accusation of bisexual erasure is profoundly insulting to me. I know full well what it is, and I am most certainly NOT indulging in it. As I have stated before, I am not biphobic, all I want to do is make a decent article within the BLP rules. Your Hillary Clinton comparison is a Straw man arguement, because Hillary Clinton has never made such an announcement, and if she did, it would likely make far more of a media impact than Bjork's statements. Let me ask you this, MerriFun...if the BLP rules state that LGBT categories are not to be used unless notable to the person's public life, what would constitute relevance? People in this encyclopedia are supposed to be in here because they are notable, but the BLP rules state that LGBT categories are not supposed to in there unless relevant to the persons public life. Therefore, how would we determine in an objective manner what would constitue relevance to a person's public life in regards to an LGBT cat? A mere statement that the person is LGBT is not enough simply because that person is a public figure, because if it were, the BLP rules would say that EVERYONE on the encyclopedia who is LGBT should have an LGBT category. Do you follow my train of logic here? I hope that you will address my arguement this time rather making another ad hominem attack against me. Asarelah I have removed the bisexual category again, and I think we should leave it that way until we both come to a consesous on this issue. I am putting in a request for comment about this article so we can get some fresh input. (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

1) I can't see the point of the BLP rule on relevance. When I look at a category list I want to make the decision whether it is relevant, not have it made for me. As long as it is well-founded it should be there. 2) Relevant because she has made statements in interviews - she has entered a debate in the public domain. It is relevant to her work as an artist, to her position as a public figure, and to the important public issue (sexuality) she engaged with. MerriFunn (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Also I didn't mean to offend. MerriFunn (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue until we get some new input. Hopefully the request for comment will help us to arrive at some sort of consensus. Edit: And I accept your apology.Asarelah (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought. The statement that "everyone is a little bit bisexual" indicates only that Bjork feels she is as bisexual as "everyone." Many of us would argue that we are not bisexual at all. Including her in the LGBT category, therefore, is justified only by a very questionable set of standards of sexuality. If Bjork's statement is correct, then she is bisexual; if her statement is incorrect, then there is a significant possibility that she is not. Arbitrarily deciding that she is correct seems biased toward a theory which has no scientific basis. Without deciding that she is correct, to assume (in the absence of more solid evidence) that she is bisexual is original research. And, ultimately, unless her sexuality influences our understanding of her well-known and significant work, I don't see that it passes the BLP rule. Again, just a thought. 66.82.9.55 (talk) 05:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This arguement has already been settled, but that you for the input. Asarelah (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Drawing Restraint 9 spoiler warning

I think the section needs one. I didn't know what it was about and just read what I imagine are the most important parts in about two seconds. But, I don't know what the guidlines are for this sort of thing, so I thought I should just suggest it.

Phrase

This need rephrased to something succinct: [Bjork is a singer] with a great expressive range and an interest in many kinds of music including pop, alternative rock, jazz, ambient music, electronica, folk, and classical music.

Thank you. Rintrah 13:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ancestry

Be sure to check here first before adding anything else. Your point may have already been made. swidly 06:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What is her ancestry?

Although many have commented on her Oriental/Inuit facial features, by all accounts Bjork denies any such in her ancestry. However she isn't 'typical' in looks to other Icelandic people (but not unique either). Some have speculated Sami (Lapp) descent in the long distant past. She was also teased as a child with the taunt 'China girl'.

See also http://ask.yahoo.com/20000720.html

The Yeti 14:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

she looks a little japanese to me.

She looks human. Probably is too.

Epicanthal folds... LOL!! What's next? Craniology? There could be a myriad of reasons for the look of her eyes and none of them with :any relation to ethnicity in the family album... and if there was? Who cares except for racists? Noserider 07:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

She looks like a Eurasian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.170.5.105 (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

She doesn't look Japanese or Asian, but its most likely that she has some amount of Sami ancestry, and her appearance is very very rare among ethnic Icelanders. Alot of people care, not just 'racists', and theres nothing wrong with craniology. 69.157.109.144 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Section names

Using the album's titles as section names looks very weird. ChKa 20:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Backseat

What's the name of the song where she's singing in the backseat of a car, crying? I know that she's doing a part in another band album. What 's the name of the band? Thanks!!! 201.19.197.26 00:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Atheist category

According to one review of Bjork DVD on Amazon.com: "Bjork discusses that she thought she was at first an atheist, but then she matured and realized she did have a religion, nature." I haven't found any interviews where she states that she is an atheist, so I'm removing the category. Asarelah 02:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

From HotPress in an article titled "Björk on the Wild Side", dated 1994:
Q: Who does Björk pray to?
Björk: "I've got my own religion, " she concludes, giving her nose a final scatch, poke and lug before heading off for a soundcheck. 
"Iceland sets a world-record. The United Nations asked people from all over the world a series of questions. Iceland stuck out on 
one thing. When we were asked what do we believe, 90% said, 'ourselves'. I think I'm in that group. If I get into trouble, there's 
no God or Allah to sort me out. I have to do it myself."
http://www.abc.se/~m8996/bjork/interviw/hotpress.html

---

From Les Inrockuptibles No. 14. (June 16, 1995):
Q: Do you believe in God?
A: I do not believe in religion, but if I had to choose one, it would be Buddhism. It seems more livable, closer to men. 

---

More on Buddhism, from Raygun, Sept 1997
RG: Did you enjoy your performance at the Tibet Festival?
Björk: I did, but I've been reading about reincarnation, and the Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as 
lesser beings. Well, animals aren't lesser beings, they're just like us. So I say fuck the Buddhists. 

---

"It's a big question. Getting rid of religion would be a good start, wouldn't it? It seems to be causing a lot of havoc."
   * When asked "Given the chance, how would you change the world?" (Independent, 18 March 2005.) 

I've reinstated the category. swidly 05:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a *HUGE* difference between not believing in a diety (which is atheism) and not believing in the doctrines of organized religion. Plenty of people who believe in a higher power are disgusted or disenchanted with religion. It isn't clear that she's an atheist, especially since she says that she's "got her own religion". Unless she actually declares atheism, her statements are too ambigous and categorizing her as an atheist is potentially libelous. I'm removing the category. Asarelah 17:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh... but she says right in there (from the first quote) "... there's no God or Allah to sort me out." The definition of atheism is "one who believes that there is no deity" (from merriam-webster). How is this not clear? It doesn't matter if she has her own religion; as long as she doesn't believe in a diety, that would technically be atheism. Atheism is not the same as anti-religious. I agree there's a difference between the two, but her first quote isn't ambiguous at all; she says she doesn't believe there's a God figure.

And why would labeling her as an atheist be libelous, unless she's ever indicated even a slight hint of believing in God? I'd understand if maybe Björk kept mum on the religion issue, but she's always been outspoken. Just because it makes other people uncomfortable labeling her an atheist or it somehow doesn't mesh with their image of Björk doesn't mean we should censor the truth. She may be ambiguous on how religious she is, but her stance on whether or not God exists is not ambiguous at all. Sorry, but I'm re-reinstating the category. swidly 00:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Her quote of "If I get into trouble, there's no God or Allah to sort me out. I have to do it myself." is still ambigious, because it can be interpreted to mean that although she believes in a diety, she does not believe that the diety will assist her. She also said that she thought she was an atheist at first, but later matured. Her wording in her statement that she thought she was an atheist "at first" clearly indicates that she no longer is one. I, for one, am not the least bit uncomfortable with the idea of Bjork being an atheist, nor am I trying to "censor the truth". I am not a fan of Bjork. I am simply trying to avoid libeling the woman. I am again removing the category. If you really want to keep pressing the issue, we can list this discussion in the requests for comment section. Asarelah 00:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, okay, I agree to stop pressing the issue. I still think her quotes make it painfully obvious as to her views (and tsk, tsk! The supposed quote of her saying "she was an atheist at first, but later matured" is from an Amazon.com reviewer, not from her own lips), but I read the guidelines for wiki biographies of living persons and it says religious/sexual views are not to be included unless: "The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life". 'Nuff said. Not relevant. swidly 04:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Calling Bjork an atheist libel? Asarelah, how is that Libel?? I would take it as a compliment.. Noserider 07:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep the category. They are not to be interpreted in a strict sense.--SummerWithMorons 10:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Some people would consider it libelous, Noserider. And since the bios of living people guidelines say that the subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are not to be included unless they are relevant to the subjects notable activites or public life, it would be innapropriate to include it. Asarelah 15:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

^Agreed. When in doubt, go with the wiki guidelines. swidly 04:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Atheism is not "not believing in a deity" it is Believing that deities don't exist. Big Difference. Anywho she says there is no god etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.220.252 (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There was an interview in a UK newspaper magazine maybe two years ago where Bjork made some atheistic comments that were much stronger than those quoted above. Haven't been able to find it on Google, but seem to recall it was questionnaire style. She was asked "what would make the world a better place" and she basically said something like "getting rid of all the religious people". Think she might have used a swear word, too. --82.69.202.14 (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Here it is. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-03/18/content_426263.htm Sorry to disappoint, but there's no swearing after all. I see it's already quoted above anyway.--82.69.202.14 (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I found an even less ambiguous quote, where she actually identifies herself as an atheist: http://dominichilton.blogspot.com/2007/05/communism-it-still-sucks-no-matter-what.html

Is that case closed? --82.69.202.14 (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As swidly said, the wikipedia guidelines for living people says that religious views and sexual orientation are not be included unless "The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life". Since it is not relevant, it is not to be included. Asarelah (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That's confusing, because there are definitely living people in the category who would not qualify under this criteria. Some militant theist needs to do a purge! In any event:

1) Bjork is primarily a singer, and has sung songs about this subject (eg "Deus");

2) Bjork's interviews are surely part of her "public life" (if not, then what does this phrase mean?)

--78.144.111.105 (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, even the quotes that you put up do not automatically make her an atheist. Anti-religious, sure, but a person can believe in god but not believe in organized religion. Furthermore, simply because she talks about stuff like this in an interview does not automatically mean that it is part of her "public life". It would be part of her public life if she was active in atheist organizations, if it was well-known that she is atheist, etc. She might, for example, mention her son in her interviews, but it certainly doesn't mean that her son is a part of her "public life". And yes, if there are living people in the atheist category who do not meet the criteria, go right ahead and purge them out, by all means. Asarelah (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The quotes do make her an atheist, since she describes herself as one, earlier this year: "I think atheists should start screaming for attention like religious folks do. We should go and kill thousands of people like they do as well" (my emphasis).

My question is: what is your basis for such a narrow definition of "public life"? It seems to me that the only sensible purpose for the WP guidline is to prevent intrusion into people's personal lives. If they talk publicly about their religious views, or if these views become of notable public interest for some reason, then the guideline will be satisfied. The major part of Bjork's public life consists of singing songs and giving interviews. She has sung songs which can be described as clearly atheistic (I can think of two examples: "Deus" and "It's in Our Hands" - there may be others (EDIT: "Wanderlust")), and talked about her atheism and anti-religious opinions in interviews. It would seem to me that the bar is being set a bit unfairly if wikipedia is not allowed to mention any of this.

I don't see your point about her son - all her children are named in the article in any case.

One last point. Membership of an organisation can't possibly be considered as a criteria, since it would guarantee against neutrality (ie in the vast majority of cases, religious affliation would be reportable, but athesim would not). --89.242.142.14 (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to list this discussion under Requests for Comment, especially in light of the fact that she states that she has her "own religion", whatever that may be. I'll put it on the bottom of the talk page. Asarelah 17:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think songs offer poor proof, as they can certainly be read subjectively. "Deus", for example, obviously has the line "... does not exist", but the rest of the song talks about his characteristics. The rest of the songs are even more subjective. Not all songs are autobiographical; plus you have to factor in symbolism, etc.

You bring up an interesting question about the definition of "public life". My feelings are her career is mainly as a singer, so on the controversial topics of sexuality and religion, which the Wikipedia guidelines specify should be treated differently, they don't seem to be pertinent. Although she mentioned it in passing in an interview when directly asked, she hasn't written or spoken expressly on the topic of atheism, like figures such as Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins have. I have to go back to the fact that she's (arguably) not well known for being an atheist, but a singer. Even though I personally believe she probably is one, I still don't see it as being pertinent to her career. 204.126.199.96 (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I just find it very curious that she's an athiest when she has such a spiritual symbol as a tattoo. To have runes tattooed on your arm, something that is believed to be discovered and given to man by Odin (a Norse diety), seems kind of odd on an athiest. I'm not at all contesting if she is or not, thats her own personal business, I just find it rather odd.... JanderVK (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to 204.126.199.96: Think you start off by missing the point a bit. Yes, it's a fair point that the songs cited are not conclusive proof of Bjork's religious stance, but that is not what is in issue (at least I think it isn't), since a quote where she states she is an atheist has been provided. The question seems to be more about whether singing and writing songs counts as part of her "notable activities or public life". Since she's a singer, I'd say it does. There's then the question of whether it is reasonable to describe the songs in question as being about her (non) religious beliefs. This is a slightly subjective question, but think we only need to be somewhere in the ballpark in order to answer "yes" (because we are not lookign for a high standard in terms of exactly how athestic they are, only that they need to be generally about her beliefs.

Think the issue of what the rule is designed to remedy should be considered. It is not there because there are too many cumbersome religion tags on WP. It is there to protect people's privacy. Since she is quite public about her beliefs, it's hard to see how there is a privacy issue.

Lastly, there ought to be reasonably equal treatment among people of different religious persuasions. Cliff Richard is a Christian who has sung Christian songs, Cat Stevens is a muslim who has sung Islamic songs. I bet they have religion tags. In fact I best the vast majority of singers whose religion is known get a religion tag. Why different treatment for atheists? --78.150.170.87 (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Stalker

Does Anybody Else Agree That We Should Make An Article For Bjorks Stalker? Thanks. P.S I Love Bjork X(Id Rather Be Hated For Who I Am, Than Loved For Who I Am Not 21:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC))

I don't think so. He isn't notable beyond his stalking of Bjork. Asarelah 00:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ableton Live

I've included Bjork on the Ableton Live User's category. There's an interview on her studio techniques and on the use of Ableton Live here: http://remixmag.com/artists/remix_breath_control/

New album info

http://www.play.com/Music/CD/4-/3304729/Totempole/Product.html lists the title as Totempole. Is this sufficient to be used as a source? 85.217.39.4 19:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Unregistered.

No, not until bjork.com confirms it. Consulate76 00:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Mother?

There's a record label called "Mother" ? - can't find an entry on wikipedia for it. i'm going to remove it unless someone says something. --IceflamePhoenix 22:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course there is! All her records in continental Europe were issued under that label. One Little Indian does the UK (and others), while Elektra did the US. Dollvalley 08:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

....just because you can't find it on here doesn't means it's been made up, jeez...what some people think on here, just because they have nothing better to do... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dollvalley (talk • contribs) 07:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Swan dress

The article discusses the dress and the reaction to it, but doesn't mention why she was wearing that particular dress. According to material at the time, her experience making "Dancer in the Dark" was so dreadful that she did not plan to act again. Therefore, this was her "swan song". K8 fan 17:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The Margaret Cho quote about Bjork's swan dress is incorrect. When speaking about being named "worst dressed," she was speaking about herself, and a dress she wore, which I believe was a peacock. 75.165.63.174 04:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)pinfeathers

Is a whole section devoted to the swan dress really necessary? As much as her unusual fashion choices are a part of her... it seems that this swan dress was only note-worthy because she wore it to the oscars.... I'm betting if this was worn at one of her concerts, nothing would have been said, much less a whole wiki section on it... Jooreecho

I hate this section of the article. Its almost impossible to find references to confirm the gossipy comments by Cho and Rivers. I vote that we get rid of the section, somehow...—Gaff ^ταλκ 16:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Björks Tattoo

Hi. I heard that her tattoo was a Viking Compass, but I can't find anything about it here. If anyone dose, please add it. --Steinninn 06:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

According to this it is an aegishjalmar or "helm of awe." it's supposed to protect you. --fanturmandos 21:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a Vegvísir. It was supposed to guide vikings in the fog. Alvareo (talk) 04:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Volta

Release date for Volta is May 7th, right? Or am I wrong? Wbchilds 10:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It depends. In Italy (my country) it has been released the 4th. Pharamp

Fair use image

ShadowHalo has raplaced an CD cover image with a rather low quality image of Björk on a consert in Russia. Aren't CD covers fair use on artists biography? If no one has anything against me raplacing it again, then I will. --Steinninn 12:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NONFREE states that, whenever possible, free images should be used for sections instead of copyrighted ones. ShadowHalo 23:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Icelandic last names

The article says:

"Björk usually goes by her first name only. This is not a stage name or affectation; it is normal for an Icelander to be referred to by his or her first name, as the last name simply indicates the name of the father (or occasionally the mother). See Icelandic naming conventions."

I don't agree that an Icelandic last name indicates the father's/mother's name. This is true for most icelanders (including Björk), but definitely not for all. For example, the author and Nobel prize winner Halldór Laxness had another kind of last name (though born Guðjónsson, 'Son of Guðjón'). I had a physics teacher at university with the last name Bjarman, and the most prominent Icelandic theoretical physicist has the Latinized last name Thorlacius. // Jens Persson (213.67.64.22 20:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

Funny that two Icelanders would argue about this, but I think that this makes perfect sence. Saying something like "normally indicates the name of the father" would just confuse the matter for non-Icelandic people, and if you want to correct anything, you should do it at the link given. If people are interested, then they can read about it there. --Steinninn 06:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, could someone enlighten me as to how the names of her children Ísadóra Bjarkardóttir Barney and Sindri Eldon Þórsson can be explained in terms of Icelandic naming conventions? Thanks, Kudret abi 06:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. Sindri is the son of Þór Eldon Jónsson and thus he got the patronymic "Þórsson" (son of Þór). I'm actually not sure whether Eldon is a given name or some sort of family name. Ísadóra got the family name of her father, Barney, and a matronymic, Bjarkardóttir (daughter of Björk). Haukur 10:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the answer Haukur, you are very knowledgeable, I appreciate it. Best, -- Kudret abi 04:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Selmasongs does not get its own listing?

The album Selmasongs, which contains several pieces from Dancer in the Dark (albeit in different versions), doesn't get its own section here. I added one in (although may have accidently done so as an anon), but it was reverted. Shouldn't this album, particularly given the history behind it and the dispute between Bjork and Von Trier over said music, deserve to get broken out into its own section, rather than lumped in with another album? Ihaveseenenough 05:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny way to show it

How is someone who sends you an acid bomb a "fan"? 82.69.28.55 19:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

the word fan is derived from the word fanatic. 216.232.50.250 (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The Swan Dress Again

I also think there's no need for a separate section for this dress. Maybe it should be put in a section "Media Appearance" or something like that, and in the same section should be mentioned the case with the reporter she attacked after the words "Welcome to Bangkok" (that reported had been harassing her for a couple of days). And I really want to know why she wore that dress... Didn't she explain it in an interview??

I agree. No separate section for the dress, although the dress is pretty infamous. It was one of the more hideous articles of clothing I've ever seen a human being wear; but it was bold. By the way, would you like to sign your posts next time? One signs by simply clicking the 10th icon to the right, on the tool bar above the edit space. --Garzj019 05:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Does she have East Asian ancestry?

Someone told me that once, although I'm sceptical as to whether that's true...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I read that its only a rumor and that she's caucasian. Asarelah 02:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of stuff on forums about this. Understandably, seeing as she faced bullying because of her looks when she was at school, she laughs off or ignores questions. My feeling is that it's something to do with the fact that Icelanders have Irish roots, and some Celtic people have eyes like hers. The feeling about the epicantic fold is that it's an ancient feature that everyone's common human ancestors had before some left Africa. Some of the people leaving Africa lost it and some didn't.

16:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Mostyn

She has said that she has nothing to do with Asian people. It´s obviously strange, I don´t deny it, that neither her parents or grandparents have her eyes... I guess it´s a mystery... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvareo (talk • contribs) 19:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh, she probably just got an unusual combination of recessive genes. Besides, its not relevant to the article unless she identifies herself as Asian. Asarelah (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Many Sami people (indigenous people from the North of Scandinavia) have similar facial features, it is not inconceivable that she carries some genetic heritage from this group since Iceland was settled by Norsemen. rturus (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment, Atheist category

{{RFCbio}}

This doesn't seem to be showing up on the list page. --89.242.207.108 (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Aw, crap. No wonder nobody was commenting. I'd better take care of it. Thanks for noticing. Asarelah (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• First RfC comment: Same deal as above. The principle is simple: Wikipedia does not interpret information, it reports it. So unless Björk has declared herself atheist and that declaration has been published/broadcast by a reliable third party, she cannot be called an athesist at Wikipedia. If she has declared that she is atheist and that declaration has been published/broadcast by a reliable third party, then she can be called atheist at Wikipedia. See WP:ATT and WP:BLP.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Closed. See above. Requires RS. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Post" section

There isn't one. Why? I believe it was her most successful album... there's no reason to just jump from Debut to Homogenic. Ian-sama (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Exodus

On Charter Digital Cable's music choice, there are little one-sentence facts that pop up about the artist that you're listening to. On channel 915 (Alternative), it was playing Bjork's "Human Behavior," and the little fact that appeared at the bottom stated that "Before going solo, she was a member of various punk bands including Exodus, etc." This doesn't seem right. Their genre in the infobox says thrash-metal, unless of course they started out punk and became thrash later on. I don't really listen to this band, but I was curious on if Bjork really was a member of this band. (For the record, I'm not a Bjork fan either, this was just something that I noticed about an hour ago flipping through channels trying to find something to watch.) 68.211.95.197 (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Biggest Seller

What is Bjork's biggest selling album? Like, how many has each album sold? Does anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponyonchristmas (talk • contribs) 11:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Dedication controversy

I have removed some material from the article regarding the reaction to Bjork's "Tibet" exclamation. The material was sourced only to a blog of unknown reliability; in addition, the blog was, for the most part, not English-language, making the extent to which its contents supported the material's claims difficult to judge. The deleted material was rather derogatory, describing Bjork as a "coward" and implying that she had attempted to deceive her audience. If the deleted description was accurate, it is likely that an appropriate source can be turned up. I also modified a section which gave what was presented as a direct, English-language quotation, but was cited to a non-English-language source. (The quotation itself was ascribed to multiple sources, which appeared unlikely to me. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have optimized the references. Some references should be cited twice, but I do not know how to reuse reference, any idea? Many refs are not in English, but you cannot write about Chinese people's response if you don't ref their blogs, esp. when the mainstream news are censored. English language quotation was translated from Chinese. I do not know whether there is some requirement on this, but if there is requirement that in English wikipedia we cannot cite people's opinion in other language, I think it is unreasonable because it does not allow unbiased writing of this entry. QuickTime (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Blogs and other self-published sourced should nor be used to make claims about third parties, in particular in WP:BLPs. See WP:SELFPUB, and WP:RS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine. But I still believe if we are talking about responses from people, blogs reflect real people's opinions better than, NYT or whatever controlled media. QuickTime (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess you can quote me there too. I'm a fan of her and loved what she did. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

External link to ZotFish?

Hi, I was wondering if it would be appropriate for someone to add an external link to the ZotFish page for Björk?. I believe it's of genuine interest to readers, but I want to make sure I follow Wikipedia policy and not post it myself -- more info on the site can be found at Mashable.

Zotman (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here before adding it to the article. This link would not enhance the article in my view. See WP:EL for more details. --John (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)