This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why the tag? After the recent events of Norway, I find it extremely hard to believe that anyone of any intelligence (without a political ax to grind) could possibly find Pedersen to be of low notability or that this is hardly an "orphan article". There's plenty of other people far less notable or pertinent to current events who have articles in good standing than this individual. Grow up! Shanoman ( talk) 04:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Not notable in my opinion (and removed from article):
"As with many other norwegians, favorite dish is vienna sausages, as he considers it to be a "working class" meal." [1]
We probably mention some of the eating preferences in the articles of various statesmen. But I doubt that the eating preferences of Pedersen, have been a notable issue in Norway or anywhere else. -- Arvein ( talk) 11:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
When gunshots were fired on Utøya during the massacre, he fled with boat. The rest of the member's of his organization had to hide on the island, or swim off the island, or end up getting killed/wounded.
What was the number of people who followed him onto M/S Torbjørn?
A section needs to deal with the timeline of his actions at Utøya. (And it is human to panic, so I think I will be careful to criticise him for taking the boat 10 kilometers away from Utøya, without waiting to see if anyone was going to try to swim away from the island.)-- 85.166.141.247 ( talk) 12:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
When someone's first complete sentence in a discussion, is "These bullshit speculations belong in third-rate teenager blogs and not on Wikipedia." — it is not communicated as an opinion, but as a fact.
Regarding anonymity, details about someones user page, is not a part of this discussion. At this point in time, everyone in this discussion, has been anonymous. (I have seen some of the users of this website write their full name, before their wikipedia-signature. This is possible one way of becoming less anonymous in a discussion.)
Generally speaking, if someone's opinion is notable for this website, then there must be a notable reference (or citation) to follow the text relating to the opinion. At least that is how things work in the main articles of this website/encyclopedia.
If I or any one else make notable claims to have been "there" (as a participant or "player"), it might be interesting to see notable references that support such claim. But a more pertinent question might be, has this-or-that notable claim been published by a notable publication?-- 85.165.229.54 ( talk) 12:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear toresbe, Eskil Pedersen has become a very prominent politician and a public person. He holds public office and is highly eligible for a future career in the norwegian government. With this in mind, the incidence with Tybring-Gjedde is IMO notable and worth mentioning. After all he himself brought the media along when he filed the criminal charges at Grønland police headquarters and therefore i deduce that it was indeed his intention that the event was made public. This is IMO not controversial and does not shed bad light on EP. If you disagree with the phrasing then do something about that, dont just remove the entire thing and claim that it is a phrasing issue.
Regarding the phrasing, the situation is very simple
1. Accuser accused the accused
2. Police dismisses the charges
3. accused demands an apology
4. accuser refuses to apologize (as he was described in the article which was referenced, is this really disputed by anyone?) Do you disagree with accuracy of these events?
Regarding the point of the evacuation, M/S Thorbjørn and the coup theory. It is IMO necessary to explain due to the correlation of these events, The following facts should be undisputed, as they were clearly confirmed by eskil himself in the source. (due you disagree with eskil?)
1. Eskil and his aide hear the gunfire and seeks refuge on M/ST.
2. They make their escape. (this has been given alot of attention by eskil himself and media in general in the immediate aftermath of the disaster, and is IMO notable)
3. He presents the coup theories as an explanation for the route of escape. (If you think this is a wierd conspiracy theory then thats on you, i do not)
All quotes are what eskil himself has said in carefully prepared interviews with serious Media organisations (tv2, VG etc)
About the media blackout, this is an objective observation made by the journalist from Morgenbladet. And yes there may be obvious and understandable reasons behdind it, but that does not change the fact that it is in place. The fact that you describe "critical sentiment" as "such talk" is a concern. I invite you to rephrase it if you think it is not NPOV.
Finally i would like to remind you that this is NOT supposed to be a hagiography, but a NPOV article, if you have issues with statements that EP himself has made public, then you should talk to him, not censor it here.
I have undid Toresbe's latest removal of information, and here is the explanation:
Yes, the newly added text might need some tweaking, and you are free to do so, but removing sourced text is purely disruptive. Mentoz86 ( talk) 14:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I have notified WikiProject Norway of this edit war, that discussion can be seen here. Mentoz86 ( talk) 09:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
In a May 16 opinion piece in Bergens Tidende, [1] former shipping magnate Dan Odfjell harshly criticizes the Labour Party and accuses it of managing a propaganda campaign which includes making Eskil Pedersen a public image of a hero for his role in the Utøya massacre. Odfjell asserts that this is only one part of a carefully orchestrated effort by the Labour Party "to deliberately blur the distinction between itself […] and the nation of Norway." Other media have also commented on it, [2] including the Assyrian International News Agency in an English-language article. [3] Also Hanne Nabintu Herland expresses this general criticism of the Labour Party in a May 21 opinion piece where she cites Odfjell's kronikk (but not mentioning Eskil Pedersen). [4] I wonder if there are more accusations along these lines. Then something about this might merit inclusion into this article. __ meco ( talk) 16:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I find it hard to assume good faith when reading this article. I have tried to balance it a little, but generally it seems like the article is used as a tool for making sneaky allegations and criticism against AUF and Eskil P. I would suggest that if an author is unable to write a balanced section, he/she leaves it alone, rather than introducing a POV variant, leaving it for others to balance. The tit for tat games result in poor articles. Go write a blog instead. pertn ( talk) 08:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Eskil Pedersen. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why the tag? After the recent events of Norway, I find it extremely hard to believe that anyone of any intelligence (without a political ax to grind) could possibly find Pedersen to be of low notability or that this is hardly an "orphan article". There's plenty of other people far less notable or pertinent to current events who have articles in good standing than this individual. Grow up! Shanoman ( talk) 04:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Not notable in my opinion (and removed from article):
"As with many other norwegians, favorite dish is vienna sausages, as he considers it to be a "working class" meal." [1]
We probably mention some of the eating preferences in the articles of various statesmen. But I doubt that the eating preferences of Pedersen, have been a notable issue in Norway or anywhere else. -- Arvein ( talk) 11:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
When gunshots were fired on Utøya during the massacre, he fled with boat. The rest of the member's of his organization had to hide on the island, or swim off the island, or end up getting killed/wounded.
What was the number of people who followed him onto M/S Torbjørn?
A section needs to deal with the timeline of his actions at Utøya. (And it is human to panic, so I think I will be careful to criticise him for taking the boat 10 kilometers away from Utøya, without waiting to see if anyone was going to try to swim away from the island.)-- 85.166.141.247 ( talk) 12:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
When someone's first complete sentence in a discussion, is "These bullshit speculations belong in third-rate teenager blogs and not on Wikipedia." — it is not communicated as an opinion, but as a fact.
Regarding anonymity, details about someones user page, is not a part of this discussion. At this point in time, everyone in this discussion, has been anonymous. (I have seen some of the users of this website write their full name, before their wikipedia-signature. This is possible one way of becoming less anonymous in a discussion.)
Generally speaking, if someone's opinion is notable for this website, then there must be a notable reference (or citation) to follow the text relating to the opinion. At least that is how things work in the main articles of this website/encyclopedia.
If I or any one else make notable claims to have been "there" (as a participant or "player"), it might be interesting to see notable references that support such claim. But a more pertinent question might be, has this-or-that notable claim been published by a notable publication?-- 85.165.229.54 ( talk) 12:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear toresbe, Eskil Pedersen has become a very prominent politician and a public person. He holds public office and is highly eligible for a future career in the norwegian government. With this in mind, the incidence with Tybring-Gjedde is IMO notable and worth mentioning. After all he himself brought the media along when he filed the criminal charges at Grønland police headquarters and therefore i deduce that it was indeed his intention that the event was made public. This is IMO not controversial and does not shed bad light on EP. If you disagree with the phrasing then do something about that, dont just remove the entire thing and claim that it is a phrasing issue.
Regarding the phrasing, the situation is very simple
1. Accuser accused the accused
2. Police dismisses the charges
3. accused demands an apology
4. accuser refuses to apologize (as he was described in the article which was referenced, is this really disputed by anyone?) Do you disagree with accuracy of these events?
Regarding the point of the evacuation, M/S Thorbjørn and the coup theory. It is IMO necessary to explain due to the correlation of these events, The following facts should be undisputed, as they were clearly confirmed by eskil himself in the source. (due you disagree with eskil?)
1. Eskil and his aide hear the gunfire and seeks refuge on M/ST.
2. They make their escape. (this has been given alot of attention by eskil himself and media in general in the immediate aftermath of the disaster, and is IMO notable)
3. He presents the coup theories as an explanation for the route of escape. (If you think this is a wierd conspiracy theory then thats on you, i do not)
All quotes are what eskil himself has said in carefully prepared interviews with serious Media organisations (tv2, VG etc)
About the media blackout, this is an objective observation made by the journalist from Morgenbladet. And yes there may be obvious and understandable reasons behdind it, but that does not change the fact that it is in place. The fact that you describe "critical sentiment" as "such talk" is a concern. I invite you to rephrase it if you think it is not NPOV.
Finally i would like to remind you that this is NOT supposed to be a hagiography, but a NPOV article, if you have issues with statements that EP himself has made public, then you should talk to him, not censor it here.
I have undid Toresbe's latest removal of information, and here is the explanation:
Yes, the newly added text might need some tweaking, and you are free to do so, but removing sourced text is purely disruptive. Mentoz86 ( talk) 14:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I have notified WikiProject Norway of this edit war, that discussion can be seen here. Mentoz86 ( talk) 09:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
In a May 16 opinion piece in Bergens Tidende, [1] former shipping magnate Dan Odfjell harshly criticizes the Labour Party and accuses it of managing a propaganda campaign which includes making Eskil Pedersen a public image of a hero for his role in the Utøya massacre. Odfjell asserts that this is only one part of a carefully orchestrated effort by the Labour Party "to deliberately blur the distinction between itself […] and the nation of Norway." Other media have also commented on it, [2] including the Assyrian International News Agency in an English-language article. [3] Also Hanne Nabintu Herland expresses this general criticism of the Labour Party in a May 21 opinion piece where she cites Odfjell's kronikk (but not mentioning Eskil Pedersen). [4] I wonder if there are more accusations along these lines. Then something about this might merit inclusion into this article. __ meco ( talk) 16:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I find it hard to assume good faith when reading this article. I have tried to balance it a little, but generally it seems like the article is used as a tool for making sneaky allegations and criticism against AUF and Eskil P. I would suggest that if an author is unable to write a balanced section, he/she leaves it alone, rather than introducing a POV variant, leaving it for others to balance. The tit for tat games result in poor articles. Go write a blog instead. pertn ( talk) 08:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Eskil Pedersen. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)