Talk:Lenni Brenner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

unsigned[edit]

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)

Dear Mr. Brenner,

There is a popular online encyclopedia called wikipedia at http://www.wikipedia.org. I have come to rely on wikipedia for information regarding things I experience in day to day life.

After stumbling across your book "Zionism in the age of dictators", I looked you up on wikipedia and was suprised to find no information. I would like to remedy this. Do you, perhaps have an existing biography that I could read? Barring that, would you provide me with some general details of your life (city of birth, education, etc) and a list of works.

Yours sincerely

--name removed for privacy---

reply:

11 1 04 --first name--,

Thanks for writing me. Below is my author's 'blurb' or bio. Let me know if they accept it, or whatever you send them.

Stay well, give 'em hell,

Lenni --mr brenners email address removed for privacy---

Lenni Brenner was born into an Orthodox Jewish family. He became an atheist at 10, and a Marxist at 15, in 1952. His involvement with the Black civil...

I'm not going to readd the content until someone weighs in on it, hopefully someone replies soon

It's good to hear you've taken the time to contact Mr. Brenner. I'll add a notice to this effect in the article. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 08:56, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

As there doesn't seem to be any on-going issue with the copyright status of this material, and as it's not a standard notice (non-copy-vio?), I've removed it on the basis of it having served its purpose. I trust that's OK... Alai 15:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

criticism[edit]

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?

Here[1]is 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) 13:55, 20 December 2006.

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)[reply]

Alright, this is a minor detail, but for the sake of encyclopaedic accuracy: I saw Lenni Brenner at a public meeting last night, and he said that he became an atheist when he was 10. In one of the official bios he wrote down 12, but then later he realised he was only 10, also confirmed by the e-mail quoted above. 86.53.38.23

This article does not clearly state at all what views Brenner is known for. It's just a list of his bio and publications, but nothing about his views, for or against. Nothing about what his books are about.Jimhoward72 (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki non point of view[edit]

Brenner is very often cited as a proponent of New antisemitism. The entry's current status as a concise version of the [NB: very controversial] subject's self-submitted bio, as the original authorof this Wiki article writes in this discussion, must be supplemented. See wp:npov. --Shlishke (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So some people say he is an anti-Semite, technically a member of those suffering from 'Jewish self-hatred'? I'm sure there are dozens of remarks to that effect on the net. Suffice it to find a WP:RS, i.e. an historian of standing who makes the charge and insert it, with due regard to WP:BLP guidelines. Any Jew critical of Zionism usually gets shovel-loads heaped on him/her. The article is by no means perfect. But the fact that some material on his life is sourced from his own declarations is not scandalous, and does not infringe WP:NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything--anything at all--about "Jewish self hatred" or saying he's an "anti-semite"? (Have you read histories of Zionism written early in the century by Jews?--they're calculating, sometimes brilliantly argued, and nasty, and no one has ever considered the authors self-hating Jews.)
It's actually quite revealing that the pointing out of the contemporary disputes re Zionism he has caused is immediately termed a supposed proof that that that implies he is an antisemite. A very happy strawman who never even was mentioned. But helpful when charging that, Oh, everytime a Jew is critical of Zionism, he is self-loathing; any non-Jew who does so is an anti-semite. Then those same people critical of Zionism can point to such overbearing criticism. ---Shlishke (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A short lesson in logical entailment. You wrote:
'Brenner is very often cited as a proponent of New antisemitism.'
Antisemitism consists of hatred of Jews
Brenner is a Jew
Were he propounding antisemitism, he would be proposing that non-Jews hate him
Were he antisemitic, he would be a self-hating Jew
If people cite him as advocating antisemitism, they are suggesting he is a self-hating Jew.ertc.etc Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic has triumphed. It only remains to be seen that if sober, Wiki-observing material is added, you don't automatically reach for your delete button.--Shlishke (talk) 08:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my practice to delete 'sober, Wiki-observing material'. I delete edits made by people who don't appear to be sober when they make them.Nishidani (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the POV header for the simple reason that there has been no concrete illustration of where POV exists. It can only subsist, I presume, in the lack of a criticism of brenner section. But that is POV by absence of material. Brenner must have come in for a good bit of stick by competent critics, so we should look for this material, and list it.Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have eliminated the 'citation required' marks because this is not required for many other figures in Wiki: Cf. Efraim Karsh:

'He has published extensively on Middle Eastern affairs, Soviet foreign policy, and European neutrality, and is a founding editor of the scholarly journal Israel Affairs. He is a regular media commentator, has appeared on all the main radio and television networks in the United Kingdom and the United States, and has contributed articles to leading newspapers, including The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times,The Wall Street Journal, The Times (London) and The Daily Telegraph.'

Parity of treatment, intertextually, is usually a good principle to keep in mind. To require that an anti-Zionist critic's publication record be doubted, by the requirement that proof be given he has published where his bio.says he published articles, while ignoring that requirement for pro-Zionist authors, is an example of partiality. Or everyone, or no one.Nishidani (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis[edit]

Does anyone know if this book is viewable online somewhere? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See its own entry here for an URL. Zezen (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms[edit]

This is pointless. Brenner's "work" is without value; his life was spend without meaning. Nobody except the author knows him, or cares about him. If you intend to litter the Wikipedia with articles about American Trotskyists (or anti-Zionist pamphletists), the servers will explode. Delete the whole thing and be done with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.116.47 (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There are zero reliable references for this article. Somebody has put in a link to a student's personal web page in a British university's computer science department's site and a reference to a German "Anti-Zionist" publication. Is either of those a reliable source? There are also other versions of the text on the internet which flatly contradict Wikipedia's version on certain facts. Obviously somebody is being dishonest (not just Brenner).
I'm left wondering why this article is still here years later when nobody has ever been able to come up with a decent reference for it. Perhaps somebody with an account should propose it for deletion if editors cannot find sources? 50.131.184.144 (talk) 08:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously needs more refs. But there are lots out there.
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Why not help improve the article? CarolMooreDC 14:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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) 16:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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) 13:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does deadlink matter?[edit]

@Nishidani, you removed a statement about Brenner's atheism twice with edit summaries that mention that it is a dead link. The first time was before an archive URL had been added (edit summary: "deadlink."), and the second time afterwards (Edit summary: "the source is a deadlink, and the detail trivial"). Setting aside for now whether this statement is trivial/undue, why does the URL status matter? Per Wikipedia:Link rot, "In general, do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer". Freelance-frank (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning that. The policy says in general, which means exceptions exist. My reason was not only because of the dead link, but also because several hours of scouring about failed to yield me, at least, an RS with that info. I therefore thought, if I add a cn tag, it will probably stay up there for several years, and in those cases, has no function other than blotting the page with a mark that the datum is unverifiable. As a page-in-toto rewriter my prejudice is, write nothing that cannot be verified by reliable sources. I should add that the one instance where I found that remark was on a website Brenner seems to maintain for his works, but that particular note looked suspiciously like it mirrored our own wiki article, indeed, as if the author clipped it off Wikipedia. Given that doubt, had I retained it, it would be prolonging the life of Wikipedia text that can't be independently confirmed.
This is a hard page to verify. If one listens to Brenner on youtube, then, apropos precisely this, Brenner states that he was an atheist by age 9, not 10 as our article asserted. I don't think youtube, even if the link takes you to Brenner's ipsissima verba, can be used that way? That's a pity. It would help. The criticism elsewhere, for example on the Zionism in the Age of the Dictators has one critic deploring the fact that Brenner found a respectable publisher for what was, in the reviewer's opinion, trash. I noticed that, put it in, knowing that the critic didn't know what he was talking about. I was published, around that time, by the same firm, and know how strict and exigent they were about the quality of works under their imprint. It was very high. And I also know that Brenner's proposal for that manuscript met with a condition after referee input. They'd publish his controversial interpretation on condition that he provided, together with his final draft, photostats of every page from every book which he had quoted or paraphrased from. The reason Croom Helm insisted on this was to allow its editors to vet minutely the verifiability of everything he wrote, since they anticipated that it would be put under the microscope by hostile critics favourable to Zionism to trash it for any errors. I.e. they were troubled by the possibility that publishing Brenner's work, unless it were thoroughly vetted down to the last comma, would lead to a bad press for 'poor judgment' directed at Croom Helm. Brenner states this in an aside on one of his youtube interviews, but I desisted from adding that link, precisely because policy does not favour that venue.
I don't know much about policy, and just edit according to my lights as sources direct me. But if you think that remark should go back in, by all means add it back, and I'll leave it there, or make further efforts to find an RS adequate to it. Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Recalling exactly my state of mind when I wrote 'trivia', I thought:'Well, I know, or have read of, dozens of people who dismissed their given religion at a very early age, and became Marxists in mid-adolescence, not least myself.' I didn't think it very 'exceptional' but perhaps others might.Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism allegations[edit]

@Nishidani, I removed Brenner's statement that he is often branded a self-hating Jew. I did so for a couple reasons. One is because its placement in the article falsely gave the impression that Brenner was responding specifically to Stern's characterization of Brenner as an antisemite. A second, not stated in my edit summary, is because the "response" by Brenner in this case does not make much sense: Brenner says in an unrelated context that he is often described as a self-hating Jew rather than an antisemite, but Stern is directly calling him an antisemite. For this reason, I think Brenner's self-description should at least be separated from Stern's comment, if it is relevant at all.

This removal was subsequently reverted, so I am giving my explanation here. I copyedited this slightly in this commit, though additional cleanup and consideration may be necessary. Freelance-frank (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Self-hating Jew' is a particular subset of antisemitism, as the literature often shows. To call a Jew 'self-hating' is only intended to spedcify that, though antisemitism mainly refers to the enmity 'entertained' by non-Jews against Jews, some Jews putatively share the same enmity, ergo they are antisemites,, and, being 'semitic' thereby, this silly 'logic' runs, the the only explanation of such 'paradoxical' behaviour must be that the latter must hate themselves.
Ergo the objection fails. It is perfectly appropriate to include that remark. BLPs must allow the subjects treated to 'reply' to insinuations made about them, if these are on the record.Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that BLPs necessarily deserve a right to reply if the reply is not presented in reliable, independent sources, though of course it is sometimes worth including. But the main problem here is not whether Brenner's remark is due, but that it is not a reply at all. Brenner is in no way responding to Stern, explicitly or implicitly. It may be reasonable to include Brenner's remark elsewhere or to reframe it significantly in place, but simply reverting to the original text retains an incorrect implication Freelance-frank (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Waffle per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You apparently wanted to prioritize the jejune point that antisemites like B's work. It's there, and we note it, but people who write that crap never remember the dictum 'the devil can cite Scripture for his own purposes'. That antisemites cite Brenner is noteworthy but not in the sense that any conclusion about Brenner can be drawn from it, asa certain style of selective editing would like to insinuate. Brenner's remark directing answers a well-poisoning innuendo thrown his way. Secondly, you don't appear to read the sources. You removed text about Stokely Carmichael and Brenner. Had you actually read the sources you would have retained a memory that one of them, the Truthout interview, states that and much else that has been tagged as cn. People who editwar on articles without actually reading up on the topic or consulting the sources cited should not edit wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Lenni Brenner#Carmichael for that section of your statement. Freelance-frank (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is meaningless.Nishidani (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to prioritize characterizations in strong secondary sources. I prefer to de-emphasize or find alternative support for statements found only in primary sources. Freelance-frank (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Because of his work in the area" is confusing and unnecessary, an original inference from Stern's comment. I agree that the self-hating response is not a reply to Stern so needs to be framed differently; the "Brenner says" version is therefore fine. Whether self-hating is a subset of A-S is irrelevant; that's not how he frames it in the (primary) source. We should avoid editorialising with terms like "insinuation" and "smear" but simply report what's being said. I also don't think it's helpful to use terms like "waffle" rather than debating the substance. Secondary sources are better than primary, but it is ethically correct to give the BLP subject's response to a serious allegation of this kind. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carmichael[edit]

Splitting here for clarity. You said above: "Secondly, you don't appear to read the sources. You removed text about SDtokely Carmichael and Brenner. Had you actually read the sources you would have retained a memory that one of them, the Truthout interview, states that and much else that has been tagged as cn. People who editwar on articles without actually reading up on the topic or consulting the sources cited should not edit wikipedia."

No, I'm aware of that source, but I don't think it sufficient for inclusion of these details. See Wikipedia:Interviews. We already excessively rely on interviews for personal details.
It is possible that these details could be supported by the Times sources, but I do not have access to that publication. Given that these "citations needed" tags were placed in 2016, I figured it reasonable to remove. Freelance-frank (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To put it euphemistically, the above reply is disingenuous. You obviously did not read the source, because your edit summary cites as grounds for removal that the passage is 'uncited'. Had you read the source, you would have known it could be referred to a citation. Serious editing rather than deletion mode page editing, requires editors to review an article after (a) reading closely the given sources and (b) searching for further sources if material has been, most often arbitrarily, tagged as 'uncited'. This means actually doing some constructive work. Stop playing games.Nishidani (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it.
I don't think we should rely on it as much as we do.
I don't think it is unusual to remove an uncited statement that has remained uncited since 2016, even if a low-quality source is available.
I hope to continue collaborating on this article, but it may be difficult if you continue asserting my incompetence when the core issue is instead a difference of opinion. I intend to continue collaborating, and I hope that your attitude changes. Freelance-frank (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No the core point is that you, above, misrepresented what you do, and I documented it. I don't have an 'attitude'. I have a method, which has been fairly effective over 1,000+ articles. That would be considered strong evidence of competence. Tagging and removing stuff, and, note,- when it comes to adding material - harping on a single theme, the abuse and character assassination thrown his way, doesn't suggest competence, but something else. Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Focusing on the issue rather than questioning the motives of involved editors… There are multiple sources online for Carmichael but they all appear primary: Brenner obviously gives a standard text to those who interview him (“legendary Black Power leader” etc) which is then repeated by these outlets and EAs cut and paste into our text. The same snippet also provides the “intense discussions” with Newton, and possibly the three civil rights arrests. We should therefore treat these facts per WP:ABOUTSELF. I’m inclined to leave it as harmless, but strictly speaking these claims involve third parties (Carmichael, Hamilton) and uncharitably could be said to be self-serving. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC) In fact, looking up this talk page and at the edit history for the word “legendary”, I see that Brenner himself provided this material to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lenni_Brenner&diff=prev&oldid=7039603 BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, about Brenner aka Uncle Bungle. I've no problem with removing quilting epithets like 'legendary'. In terms of WP:ABOUTSELF, there's nothing here that wouldn't past muster. It's innocuous stuff. Sure, he mentions his associations with other people. Editors should take into account that a huge number of wiki bios never get the intense skeptical, policy-finangling and pressure a dissident voice like Brenner cops. I was about to register an article by Robert Cohen, and checked to see if he had a wiki bio. Apparently not, though Robert Cohen (playwright) came close to a possible profile. I read the article. 3 sources, and massive free composition with an infinite array of details clearly written by the author. I've lost count of the number of times I've come across this abuse. So, while by nature, I demand strong evidence from myself, above all, even with articles on people whose work and lives I admire (Ezra Nawi) or her Lenni Brenner, I still think editors generally should remind themselves that strict and narrow policy interpretation for articles on people many find antipathetic, has problems if pressed too far. (Not your problem, as your citing WP:Aboutself again illustrates) Nishidani (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early life primary tag[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Moved from User talk:Nishidani[edit]

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)[reply]

see here Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I move this here from its original location. Freelance-frank (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lenni_Brenner&oldid=1199978153"