Talk:Trond Andresen

Dershowitz commentary and response

Mr Andresen's comments on Jews have recently become a significant issue. Alan Dershowitz, who brought this issue to the forefront is a prominent humans right advocate. Andresen's statements on Jews are also extremely controversial, and are worthy of attention. If you feel any of the information is incorrect or libelous, please advise me. However, the secondary sources cited include national newspapers that meet Wikipedia's requirements for both notability and reliability. Also, Mr. Andresen's response to Dershowitz's allegations have been provided an equal amount of space.

I'll agree to remove the paragraph regarding Mr. Dershowitz's comments on the boycott, but the material specific to Mr. Andresen, including his views on the "tribal mentality that is so prevalent among Jews" and that "that many [Jews] have a tribalistic outlook", should remain.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC))

• I've responded at length on your talk page, but let me repeat here what I think is the most important thing: there are no secondary sources that repeat the subject's words and thus prove that they are notable and/or controversial. Once you have secondary sources it's a different matter--but those weren't there; he was quoted from a letter he wrote himself. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This is just harassment and mis-use of Wikipedia from a person with a political axe to grind. Can Hyperionsteel (do you have a real name?) accept that a bio entry in an encyclopedia - supposed to cover a few of the important aspects of a person's life - is neither a recent news piece or a political leaflet? Please leave me alone, and let people who know me revise my page - if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trondandresen (talk • contribs) 04:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, Mr. Trondandresen, you are hardly an objective and neutral source on this. But more to the point, I have not made any allegations against you nor am I harassing you. Rather, I simply quoted Alan M. Dershowitz regarding statements you made regarding Jews. I also quoted at length your response to Mr. Dershowitz's statements. As I said above, if you believe that any information cited here is false, libelous, copyrighted, etc., feel free to bring this up as a concern. However, citing material from nationally published news sources (i.e. The Wall Street Journal and the National Post is well within the bounds of Wikipedia, even if they do not necessarily reflect kindly on you.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC))

• Can we please stop throwing accusations around? Trondandresen, first of all, biographies here are (or should be) based on reliable, independent, secondary (or tertiary) sources. That is a given. No one who knows a subject probably should edit that article--in fact, it's much better done by someone who doesn't know the subject at all. Having said that, the conclusions drawn by the Stephen Roth Institute do NOT automatically rise to the level of notability, especially not since they do not appear to be completely independent--at least being based at Tel Aviv University gives the appearance of non-neutrality.

  For those reasons (again, in short, lack of secondary sourcing) I agree with the latest edit by Trondandresen, though I do not agree, Trondandresen, with your word choice. Accusing other editors of having Zionist agendas is never useful and strikes me simply as corollary of Godwin's law. Now please all calm down. Remember, we have a job to do here (besides saving the world), and that is to write an encyclopedia based on secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, Mr. Andresen, do not make wild accusations against me. I am not using Wikipedia as a "propoganda [sic]tool for Zionist harassment" and I would suggest you watch your attitude regarding other wikipedia editors (please see Wikipedia:Civility). Furthermore, if you have a problem with the information I cited, I suggest you take you contact the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism which cited this as the reason for your departure from the Red Party in a report that has been publically available on the Internet for two years.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC))

Also Mr. Andresen, you have published letters in the Aftenposten and the Wall Street Journal on this very topic. Why are you so hostile to this material being cited on Wikipedia?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC))

For the last question there is a possible answer, which agrees with editing and notability consensus--it's primary material, and a good reason for not citing that directly is the opportunity to take things out of context by citing selectively (which happens easily, if not sometimes by necessity). Hence the mandate to use secondary sources, so that filters we call reliable (i.e., reliable sources) do the job that otherwise WP editors would do. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I think the Dershowitz-Andresen controversy could be mentioned in this article, but maybe in a shorter form. Dvarske (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• If there is proper secondary sourcing for it. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Dvarske clearly has strong opinions regarding Alan Dershowitz. However, I should remind him that this is not a chat room or a blog. Wikipedia talk pages exist to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC))