Talk:Eskil Pedersen

You've got to be kidding!

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)

An article's orphan status has nothing to do with the notability of the subject, per se (see WP:O). Also, would in theory have nothing to do with poitics. Also, notability is established by reliable sources and the published guidelines within wikipedia, not by a comparison with other individuals who have articles. --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability of his preferences relating to food

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."

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)

Less than a dozen escaped in the boat he was aboard — several hundred left behind.

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)

No. These bullshit speculations belong in third-rate teenager blogs and not on Wikipedia. I realize this might be OR, but speaking as someone who was in the last group who was evacuated, this story pisses me off to no end - especially since I've only ever seen it raised by a few right-wingers in Norway who seem to perceive it as an opportunity to make him look bad but who lack decency and the basic sense to avoid such incredibly grave accusations when they have no clue about what happened. There are a ton of arguments to be made to justify actions taken that day but I am reluctant to dignify the notion that it warrants inclusion by engaging in a discussion about it.

I'm just going to leave this by saying: He was in the administration building which was just by the dock where the boat was. There were no other people in the vicinity of the dock, the people aboard the boats were sitting ducks, and the dock was surrounded by so much open space that making a run for the dock if you weren't already in the administrative building would have been quite unwise. Eskil did not "commandeer" the boat, he boarded it with others who were in the same area when the shooting broke out. There are other arguments to be made - but seriously. I don't want to engage in it. None of the other AUFers do. Drop that discussion. It's moronic and stripped of any dignity. toresbe (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I might have to get back to you regarding

• "a few right-wingers" trying to "make him look bad" (My comment: I will try to help remove non-neutral , or left-wing or right-wing proganda if it finds its way to the article.)
• "third-rate teenager blogs" (My comment: I started the discussion here based solely on what I have read in national newspapers (and their websites) in Norway. If Teenager blogs by Norwegians, are entered as references for this article, then we have procedures to deal with non-notable referencing in this article.)
• "incredibly grave accusations" (or general controversy, possibly?)
• "I don't want to engage in it." (Not engaging in a discussion, is no problem. But if you are of the opinion that you have first-hand account of what happened, then please point out what references are the most accurate, in your opinion, on points where the article's references are less accurate in your opinion. And please highlight the most illuminating quotes, if possible, since that might help the article to find a stable version, more or less. )
• "Drop that discussion. It's moronic and stripped of any dignity." (My comment: Maybe we can attempt at having a neutral tone in this discussion, with a minimum of name-calling, labelling others' opinions as "moronic", etc.)
• You are correct in highlighting the phrase with "commandeering"/"not commandeering" and "Eskil". If I can find a notable reference, that Eskil did not commandeer the boat, then I expect that I will try to introduce that into the main text.--85.166.141.247 (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for somewhat losing my temper. I hope you appreciate it's not trivial for me to keep a neutral tone when the actions of the youths on the island are made subject to speculations. I'm also quite annoyed by this gossip - and really, that is all it is - being framed as concern for the youths "left behind". Well, I was one of those youths remaining on that island. I want people who do not know what happened to stop poking around. The national newspapers reflect the speculations of these blogs, although they shouldn't even dignify it with that. The reality is: There is nothing on the table but speculations - the basis of which is non-existant.

You also have to keep in mind - we did not know what was happening at the time. A coup d'etat or an occupation were very real possibilities, which meant that the first point of the agenda would be to form a resistance movement. Eskil would have been a natural key figure in any such movement. As the head of our organisation, irrespective of the veracity of the claims he would have been absolutely right in attempting to preserve its head. I don't want to get too personal but the question foremost in my mind after being evacuated was whether or not the leadership was intact. He has continued to serve as the organisation's leader throughout this period and has in my very much not N POV done a stellar job of it.

Basically: There are so many factors at play here which make raising this point a tactless, bad decision. Arguing against it requires divulging more information of a traumatic experience than anyone is comfortable with. The rumours are based on speculations from an extremely insufficient understanding of the situation. The only reason it has not decisively been put to death in the Norwegian discourse has been that raising it is so undignified that nobody has bothered to really grab hold of the matter. If the press themselves, in a serious manner, analyse the situation and raise it as a problem - outside of merely mentioning that it's an issue raised in blogs, then we could perhaps discuss inclusion in the article. But as it is now, I believe it to be maladroit. toresbe (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

When I see any new references in discussion, then I and others will be able to make up my mind about who (if any) are doing "a stellar job". And not just have to take your anonymous word for it.--85.166.141.247 (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You're calling me out on anonymity? My user page lists my full name. You're behind an IP address. I stated that it was my opinion and never to be interpreted as anything else. toresbe (talk) 11:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

A subdiscussion has been started to address your latest entry in this discussion. (I can not see that the your last entry has answered any of the previous questions of this discussion about Eskil Pedersens and notable references about what he did at Utøya, what he did not do at Utøya.)

The name of the new subdiscussion (below), is "Anonymity; opinion; notability of one's opinions".--85.165.229.54 (talk) 12:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Anonymity; opinion; notability of one's opinions

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)

Regarding information critical of EP

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?

It should be obvious that Wikipedia claiming that he "refused to apologise" is not neutral tone, because it gives credence to the accused's claim that it is anything to apologise for. I think it was a violation of the law in question - there are many finer points in play including problematic legal precedence - but I do not put that text in there. It is not whitewashing to remove text which directly implies that what he has done merits an apology. It is to be expected that people who are accused of racism will come out against that accusation. I don't know what the practice is for this type of thing but the current text is at least better than the original, but from my view still gives undue weight to the opposition. toresbe (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

Just two points of order - first, Eskil has not commented on it, and explicitly declined to do so when asked. Notability applies to whether or not an article merits inclusion. Content in the article is subject to notability consideration, but whether due or undue weight is given to them. (ie., something that is out of place in a three-line article might not be out of place in a three hundred-line article.) toresbe (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

Strangely, it is used by many to imply poor judgement. But I've stopped assuming people talking about the boat would make any kind of sense. toresbe (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

All quotes are what eskil himself has said in carefully prepared interviews with serious Media organisations (tv2, VG etc)

Then it should not be a problem to find cites for them. toresbe (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

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.

"Media blackout" strongly implies an unwillingness to process a subject which is outside of journalistic consideration (eg., outside pressure or fear of repercussions). The media has thoroughly, when asked, pointed out their reasons from staying away from the matter. As far as they are concerned, it's a non-story. toresbe (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

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.

Please stop the COI allegations. Using false COI allegations to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is explicitly verboten. Either substantiate your claim, or refrain from using it against me. toresbe (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

MS Thorbjørn and recent criticism

I have undid Toresbe's latest removal of information, and here is the explanation:

• Edit summary 1: "Removed blatant nonsense. Both Bjørn Ihler and Adrian Pracon have explicitly said that these statements are not to be interpreted as criticism of Eskil."

Might be, but the text removed in this edit does not say this, but simply well-sourced text of what they have said: More recently, one prominent survivor who himself was wounded has publicly questioned why the ferry chose to depart, saying that is was "unbelievable" adding that they felt "helpless and abandoned" after watching it disappear. The survivor, 22-year old Adrian Pracon from Telemark later published a book detailing his ordeal, attempted unsuccessfully to block, drawing criticism. Another survivor, 20-year old Bjørn Ihler from Oslo said of Pedersen: "This was the leader of the group, it was as if the Captain abandons ship". None of this is not true, and it's all well sourced. If the info in your edit summary is correct, it can easily be added to the article if you have a citation.

But since it's true - and, I have cited this - the text no longer applies to the article since it's a detail and thus having it in there is undue weight. No? toresbe (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Edit summary 2: "The claim that Nettavisen dropped it after pressure from the Labour Party is intentional mistranslation. Near everyone criticised them fiercely, including the editors of every major news outlet in Norway."

Intentional mistranslated? How would you translate Nettavisen var det eneste store norske mediet som skrev om AUF-lederens flukt med stålferja MS Thorbjørn under massakren på Utøya. Vi opplevde hard motstand fra sentrale folk i Arbeiderpartiet, og pressekolleger skrev kommentarer om at «det finnes spørsmål ingen journalister bør stille». That is almost excatly the same as the text you removed in this edits.

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)

They did see fierce resistance from both the Labour party, Labour Youth and (omitted from the text since it's pushing a conspiracy theory) more or less everyone else in the media, but they did not "drop it" (the second, cited article was written less than a week ago, does that sound like dropping it to you?) and the text implies that the reaction and the absence of later coverage is linked, which is not substantiated. Besides, the idea that a newspaper would drop a matter just because the Labour party criticised coverage, is crazy. Norway has a free press, and the text implies otherwise. toresbe (talk) 20:43, 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)

Even the given source for Pracon's statement mentions that has specified that he not intended to criticize EP. To quote him without including this is not fair. I guess it would normally be up to me to rephrase rather than revert the incomplete/misleading paragraph, but I think cautiousness with regards to blp-issues, would merit a removal pending a rewrite which includes Pracon's explanations. 129.241.165.183 (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC) pertn (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Arbeiderpartiet accused of pushing a hero image of Eskil Pedersen

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)

The opinion piece is rife with factual errors, and the Assyrian (Why Assyrian? What gives?) opinion piece is just that, an opinion piece - by the noted anti-muslim writer Bruce Bawer. It was so stupid I didn't get past the first paragraph. The piece in NA24 is basically a criticism. I agree that the fact that these morally totally repugnant accusations exist merit mention. I do believe, however, that if the article were to be NPOV, it would actually lay out the facts in a manner which would make the logic of his actions self-evident to anyone not harbouring a desire to make him look bad. And by indicating the logic of his actions, the mention would inherently cross over into undue weight. And an NPOV recount would certainly not be anything near the bile most recently brought to press by this man - a word I here use in the loosest possible sense - who has made his fortune by sending sailors into perilous (and thus profitable) waters behind a mahogany desk in Bergen. toresbe (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Critical Bias

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)

Good initiative, an critical pair of eyes is always helpful. Regarding the Pracon-issue see that he was misquoted by several media organizations including NTB, NRK, Dagbladet og VG. In light of this i agree that his story much less qualifies as criticism of Pedersen. Roghue 23:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roghue (talk • contribs)

Thanks :). I think it's more precise now. pertn (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927185318/http://www.t-a.no/siste/article136897.ece to http://www.t-a.no/siste/article136897.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120418201636/http://stavrum.nettavisen.no/?p=4822 to http://stavrum.nettavisen.no/?p=4822

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) 14:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)