"

Dear Vrenator!
Nice to meet you. 

Yes, I do believe that you made an error removing my edit on the Jostein Gaarder page, having assumed that it was not constructive. 
However, I appreciate that you are open for a civil discussion, which is not as frequent nowadays as it should be. So, let's go (on my side not in native English, and I ask for your patience if the same could be said briefer).

Your first impression could have been that my adding the word ""controversial"" after the ""and"" in the subtitle ""Environmental and human rights activism"" can be bias, as certain Wikipedia guidelines generally suggest about this word. Generally it may be true, but not if, as in this case, the paragraph itself factually speaks about the ""Gaarder controversy"", and it opens to a whole session about that controversy.

Just the other way around; actually the existing title was a bias: because all the Journalistic Ethics Guidelines I've ever seen, state that titles should express more or less what is written within the article, and can't say the opposite.(Which, unfortunately, is a not unfrequently used way of bias; utilizing that much more people read the title than the whole paragraph, and the title remains in the minds, while the truth-qualifying statement somewhere inside the article runs unnoticed). 
How can the title be simply about his ""human rights activism"" when there is a controversion mentioned in the article about his hate-speech against a whole nation and a religion? 
I don't suggest that the Wikipedia article condemn Jostein Gaarder, as I learned and think now he has fully deserved, but 'controversial' his human rights activity certainly is.  

Therefore I firmly believe that you should revert my edit: 
I added in the title the word ""controversial"", as the paragraph itself proves it expressedly, in order to make it: ""Environmental and controversial human rights activism"". Also, for balance, besides Gaarder's own views of his own op-ed, I added at the end, how some others see the case: 'But some others see this op-ed as an expressedly anti-Semitic document'"" 

Bthw, about the whole Gaarder controversy subject in this Wikipedia article it feels strongly that the Gaarder side - for which it is a central issue - dented it rather succesfully as if almost only the Norwegian Jews found his op-ed ""offending the Jews and Judaism"". In fact several serious works of others (see later) also condemned Gaarder's op-ed as terrible hate-speech.

At least one more change - addition - is required: where the  ""Gaarder controversy"" session writes about ""others"", it asks in blue [Who?] and I wanted to add there the best source I know (The Augean Stables website), but it seemed as if I was blocked to do so. 

So, if, as I suppose, you are sincerely interested to learn about the controversy, read: 'Open Letter to Jostein Gaarder: Fisking Crypto-Supersessionism' on http://www.theaugeanstables.com/multiple-part-essays/open-letter-to-jostein-gaarder-fisking-crypto-supersessionism/ .
This is a scholarly answer to Gaarder's every statement by an American historian, and it gives every chance to Gaarder to correct himself in a respectful way. What Gaarder has never done,he only said some vague self-justifications like 'it was written in a haste' and 'should have been worded more cautiously"" - as if these could justify vehement hate speech by an authority.

As a summary, my edit is a very mild correction only to Wikipedia's Jostein Gaarder article, relative to the hate-speech he committed against a whole people and a religion, and has never corrected.       (P.s.: It can be more convenient to use e-mail - I willingly give you my address any way you suggest to do this. )
Sincerely Yours,
  "