Talk:Lenni Brenner

message: I contacted Mr. Brenner directly and requested him for his authors bio, as well as informing him of my intention to post it here.--Uncle Bungle 04:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: unsigned

message: No critique of the highly controversial Brenner at all? His books have NOT been favourably reviewed by any number of people claimng his anti-zionist tirades are neither scholastically accurate nor politically viable. Why not?
Hereis an article critical of Brenner, that hopefully someone can use to make this article better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.203.130.11 (talk • contribs).
:I don't think that a forum post signed "Mikey" and qualifies as a reliable source. The post cites some sources though, if you can find any of them, please feel free to add relevant information. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 21:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: criticism

message: Does anyone know if this book is viewable online somewhere? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lenni Brenner. 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/20060216092656/http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner01292005.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner01292005.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060208041315/http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner05252005.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner05252005.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lenni Brenner. 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/20070927200026/http://www.psreview.org/content/view/33/72/ to http://www.psreview.org/content/view/33/72/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I added a primary tag to the "early life" section because that section was sourced only to sources dependent on Brenner. It was removed with edit summary " Three sources is not 'excessive reliance'. Removed tag". However, this section still relies entirely on Brenner himself or interviews in low-quality outlets. Freelance-frank (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by 'low quality'? Why are personal memoirs not a valid source for such elementary things like date of birth, religion, and early interests? In particular the sources for that consist of interviews with Brenner, and interviews are not a primary source. Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia:Interviews reflects my understanding of how interviews are primary material (just an essay, not policy, but useful for summary). I can provide other discussions of this if necessary, but I hope that this is clear from that essay and from a reading of Wikipedia:Primary. Brenner talking about himself is primary. Introductory blurbs are frequently just rehashes of the interviewees' statements or taken directly from them, and I think that is the case here. Freelance-frank (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

text:  I don't see my characterization of these sources as "low-quality" as key to this discussion of the primary tag, so I'll wait to unpack that unless it becomes more important. Just trying to keep focused here. Freelance-frank (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early life primary tag 

message: Hi Nishidani. I think it worth talking through the dispute on Talk:Lenni Brenner. I think this dispute is causing excessive friction, and I would prefer if possible to re-establish a good faith exchange. I think this is possible with some discussion, and I would prefer to do it here rather than on the article talk to avoid cluttering that space with editor disputes.
I at least partially agree on these observations of yours:
* You observe that I removed text about Carmichael and Brenner (I agree, I did)
* You observe that I included the edit summary "-uncited", which is true (I agree, I did)
* You observe that there is at least one source, the PSR interview, which could support the unsourced statements in our article (I agree: if I recall correctly, those statements could be supported both based on the introductory blurb and Brenner's own responses)
* You say, "Had you read the source, you would have known it could be referred to a citation" (I agree, I acknowledge that possibility)
I disagree with the conclusion you draw from this:
* You say, "You obviously did not read the source, because your edit summary cites as grounds for removal that the passage is 'uncited'" 
I disagree. Just because a source exists doesn't mean I will use it. For instance, if I found this supported in the Newsmax, I would ignore that source as a possible reference. In that kind of case, I would simply removed the uncited statements. If this was disputed, I would take up conversation on the talk page, which is what has occurred. I also do not think that I gave a mistaken impression of my edit. I removed a statement that had no citations, and I included the edit summary "-uncited", which seems descriptive.
From my perspective, I believe these things and did this:
* I believe that interviews are almost always primary sources, with the occasional exception of the introductory blurb if sufficient editorial control and novelty is evident (not in this case: I think it is primary)
* I saw that there was a statement on Brenner's relationship to Carmichael that had been uncited since 2016.
* I searched for RS coverage of it, but failed to find sufficiently strong evidence for this relationship. 
* Since it had been uncited for so long, I removed it with the edit summary "-uncited". I acknowledge that I could have written a whole discussion in that 
If we assume good faith, can you see how this set of actions seems very reasonable from my perspective? I think that this is just an editing dispute, and I prefer to get beyond the assumption of bad faith. I think we may differ in our perspectives on both political issues and Wikipedia policy, but I hope we can collaborate despite these differences. Freelance-frank (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: see here Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough. I move this here from its original location. Freelance-frank (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm focused on reading up on the author whose life we are writing. That means digging through a lot of material editors, stuck in discussions on what we have, don't appear interested in reading.  And yet core elements of our reportage ignore a mass of material that clarifies text which remains obscure or contentious. I'll fix that today, if the dentist doesn't eat up too much of my free time. It only meant reading 60 pages of new sources no one has noticed, perhaps because they just don't look, but 'argue the point' at length on talk pages. Ask yourself, what new light have you thrown on the life of Brenner while editing here? I can't see anything (except carelessness).  Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from [[User talk:Nishidani]]