Talk:Jostein Gaarder

message: It seems pretty clear to me that Rune X2s perception of the article is pretty much in line with JGs main critic, Mona Levin. JG has on several occasions denied that he is attacking judaism. I think Rune X2 should accept that an encyclopedia can not refer to this text primarily by an interpretation that the author himself has denied. He is attacking (rather clumsily in my view) the use of arcaic religious ideas to wage war and oppression by the state of Israel, and he claims that a state that does so, like the apartheid regime, has no right to exist. Pertn 20:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What he is doing is promoting the medieval form of antisemitism, in which Jews should accept the subservient nature of their existence. You can't one moment promote a wholly offensive point of view and then ask for a free card by saying that those offended shouldn't feel offended. His article is a classic example of New anti-semitism. He should tolerate being quoted in this article, and as reactions are made public, they should be documented as well. I'm all for maintaining NPOV, but if this article is his lasting legacy, that's fine with me. --Leifern 20:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leifern, what you write here is just rediculous. In my view one has got to be quite paranoid to interpret the article the way you do, and I suppose your interpretation is only shared by fringe milieus of pro-israel fanatics. However, I support what you write about documenting the article  and the reactions. But I also see clear tendencies of POV interpretations in the article in it's current form. Interpretations are clearly made based on assumptions of "underlying anti-semitism", and not on what the text and the author actually says. For instance, in a debate with M. Levin on NRK 1 yesterday he denounced the idea that he is anti-semite as rediculous and said that he would ML in the fight against what she described as a growing anti-semitism in Norway. Pertn 08:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  What he intends to do is debatable. I propose we should try to avoid any interpretation at all, that we should primarily let the article speak for itself and let the reader make of it what he wants. But since we can’t quote the whole article we’ll have to single out the central and controversial paragraphs. To me, this is the denial of Israel’s right to exist (in its current form) (repeated several times) and his description of the Judanic concept of a chose people. Rune X2 20:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that we don't know what goes on the man's brain, but we should not take his assurances that he's not antisemitic at face value. In this day and age, nobody (well, hardly anybody) would admit that antisemitism motivates them; and most people aren't even aware of their own biases. --Leifern 20:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias

message: An article from the Aftenposten is said dated September 2006. We are only in August. Please someone check this. --193.56.241.75 06:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beep 

message: According to this site, mr Gaarder has decided to withdraw from all further public debate regardring the issue about his article, because of the reactions to it.
NRK: Gaarder trekker seg fra debatten (Norwegian)
imi 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaarder withdraws from further debate 

message: There have been a lot of vandalism and writing in propaganda and wrong information on this article lately... --imi2 18:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to stop vandalism on this article? 

message: I removed that statement unless it can be sourced. Thanks..--Tom 14:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deny Israel's right to exist?

message: I changed a passage that seemed to imply that gaarder did not really deny the allegations of anti-semitism, but merely blamed it on his outrage. That is incorrect. He has made it pretty clear (even in the interview accompanying the op ed) that he is not an antisemite. 
People may speculate that he may be one, even though he says he is not, but that is anoher story. pertn 20:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He certainly argued that he wasn't antisemitic, but he didn't prove that he wasn't one. People should certainly have the benefit of the doubt, but after a rant of this nature, the burden of proof shifts. --Leifern 20:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree with all of your argumentation, but I agree with your change. Refuted wasnot the best word. pertn 18:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About my last edit

message: The word, often misused, pertains specifically to *the study of* education as as a subject in it's own right, not to anything and everything pertaining to education.  In particular, a family is never pedagogical, although some of the things done by its members might be concerned with education and a subset of those just might be concerned with pedagogy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.184.246 (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the misuse of the word, "pedagogical". Whomever wrote that sentence, using pedagogical as an adjective to describe Gaarder's parents, didn't realize that in addition to being incorrect usage, it was also slightly pejorative. It connotes the arrogant fussiness of the pedant, being pedantic, which is clearly not intended. "Pedagogy" usually refers to specifics, either style or method, of teaching as done by an educator. I re-wrote the sentence and removed "pedagogical" entirely.--FeralOink (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse of "pedagogical" 

message: As usual in BLPs, there was nothing about the subject's family :o) Gaarder writes children's books, so it is relevant! He married his high school sweetheart, has two sons and a few grandchildren. I am adding  a few details about that, all of which are sourced. 
That's my primary reason for putting a maintenance tag on the article, for now.
--FeralOink (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Typical male Wiki editor perspective ;O)

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Jostein Gaarder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060815003031/http://www.sophieprize.org:80/ to http://www.sophieprize.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jostein Gaarder. 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/20080518024917/http://www.tcd.ie/Communications/pressRelease.php?headerID=260&pressReleaseArchive=2006 to http://www.tcd.ie/Communications/pressRelease.php?headerID=260&pressReleaseArchive=2006
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) 16:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified