Talk:Document.no

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Document.no article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 180 days

Norway

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles

Islam: Islam and Controversy Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Alternative Views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

NinaHj (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.
2601:584:8100:500:7D6:C557:8671:D6C (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection.

Comment from USA correspondent for Document.no[edit]

I am the USA correspondent for Document.no and based in Florida. It is important that Wikipedia's article about Document reflect what our newspaper is all about. The version that exists now, is inaccurate and slanderous. Especially the English version. Her is an example of the introduction in Norwegian which is accurate:

"Document.no er en norsk nettavis som inneholder politisk analyse, kommentarer, essays og reportasjer og utgir bøker innen politisk filosofi på Document forlag."

"The English version however is: Document.no is a Norwegian far-right anti-immigration website. Academics have identified Document.no as an Islamophobic website permeated by the Eurabia conspiracy theory. The website received global media attention in connection with the 2011 Norway attacks due to its association with perpetrator Anders Behring Breivik, a former comment section poster on the website."

The page is also labeled with a warning, and as a series on Islamophobia.

There are so many other falsehoods in Documents Wikipedia page, and too many to mention. Opinions from far-left fanatics in Norway are fueling the lies, because in their world only their truth matters.

I will do an article for Document on the slander - and hope to get your input. As I will be doing interviews here in the US, many will not be associated with me when they see your smear campaign in English.

But to be honest, I care more about those who work hard in Document, my friends who are regular Norwegians, and not far-right, Islamophobic, conspiracy theorists, and racist. You ought to read it sometime.

Elisabeth Rooney 2601:584:8100:500:7D6:C557:8671:D6C (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As prescribed by Wikipedia's verifiability policy, this article reflects information published in reliable sources. Numerous reliable sources, including including high-quality reliable sources, describe Document.no as a far-right anti-immigration website; this article does the same. It is not "slander" to present information from reliable sources that are cited at the bottom of the article.

While the Norwegian Wikipedia's article on Document.no appears to be omitting the high-quality academic sources that are cited in this English Wikipedia article, any editor is welcome to add the missing sources to the Norwegian Wikipedia article so that it can correctly reflect Document.no's status as a far-right anti-immigration website. — Newslinger talk 11:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"High quality reliable sources" my ass. Most of the article is the product of cherry picking from a biased medua. 2A01:799:29F:6A00:C186:3C24:A1C5:5FAB (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources to understand reliable sourcing on Wikipedia. A source is not "biased" merely because it publishes content that you personally disagree with. — Newslinger talk 05:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, a source is cannot be biased because there is personal disagreement? The disagreement is there because the article is full of misinformation. We who know Document.no only get further confirmation that Wikipedia is useless or even dangerous as an information site, regardless of your highly esteemed "high-quality reliable sources"

-A Falma 212.33.137.182 (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the sentence again: "A source is not 'biased' merely because it publishes content that you personally disagree with." That sentence has a completely different meaning from the wording in your reply ("a source is cannot be biased because there is personal disagreement"). The fact that someone employed by Document.no dislikes Wikipedia's coverage of Document.no is irrelevant; Wikipedia is not censored. There is no evidence that this article is "full of misinformation". If you would like to propose a change to the article, please provide reliable sources that support your claims. — Newslinger talk 04:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Contributed comments to..."[edit]

Hi Thismess, your recent edit (Special:Diff/1190351180) restored the following text to the article (highlighted in bold):

Document.no received global media attention after the 2011 Norway attacks when it became known that terrorist Anders Behring Breivik had contributed comments to the site (among numerous websites, anywhere from neo-Nazi sites to mainstream newspaper forums),^[1] attended one of its events and been in contact with its owner Rustad over a possible cooperation.

References

^ "Anders Behring Breivik" (in Norwegian). 21 April 2023.

This text was originally added in your previous edit at Special:Diff/1165497414 prior to my reversion in Special:Diff/1190212939.

The relevant text of the cited source (the Great Norwegian Encyclopedia about Anders Behring Breivik) is:

Anders Behring Breivik var i årene før terrorangrepet aktiv i en lang rekke ulike nettfora og i kommentarfeltene på en rekke nettsteder, inkludert det nazistiske stormfront.org, det innvandringskritiske nettstedet document.no og nettstedet til det liberalkonservative tidsskriftet Minerva. Han skal også ha hatt brukerkontoer på nettstedene til flere norske mediehus, inklusiv VG og Aftenposten, og var en aktiv bruker av internettbaserte rollespill. Via Facebook hadde han dessuten kontakt med høyreekstreme organisasjoner som English Defence League (EDL) og den norske avleggeren Norwegian Defence League. I tillegg skal Breivik fysisk ha deltatt på en større EDL-markering.

In the years before the terrorist attack, Anders Behring Breivik was active in a wide range of different online forums and in the comment fields on a number of websites, including the Nazi stormfront .org, the immigration-critical website document.no and the website of the liberal-conservative journal Minerva. He also allegedly had user accounts on the websites of several Norwegian media houses, including VG and Aftenposten, and was an active user of internet-based role-playing games. Via Facebook he also had contact with far-right organizations such as the English Defense League (EDL) and the Norwegian offshoot Norwegian Defense League. In addition, Breivik is said to have physically participated in a major EDL marking.

Per the verifiability policy, all article content must be directly and fully supported by cited reliable sources. The source cited for the text in question does not explicitly state that Breivik contributed comments to numerous websites, or to multiple neo-Nazi sites (plural) or mainstream newspaper forums (plural). The source only claims that Breivik contributed comments to "a number of websites", listing only Stormfront (website), Document.no, and Minerva (Norwegian periodical).

While the source states that Breivik was "active in a wide range of different online forums", the source did not claim that Breivik contributed comments anywhere other than "a number of websites" including the three that were explicitly listed. Likewise, while the source states that Breivik "allegedly had user accounts on the websites of several Norwegian media houses", the source does not claim that Breivik contributed comments to these websites.

To claim that Breivik posted on neo-Nazi sites (plural) and mainstream newspaper forums (plural) is not supported by the cited source, and has the effect of diminishing Breivik's participation in Document.no prior to his role in the 2011 Norway attacks. On the other hand, it would be acceptable for this Wikipedia article to use wording along the lines of "...Breivik had contributed comments to the site (among other websites including Stormfront and Minerva), ..." because such language would not misrepresent the cited source.

I've implemented this change in Special:Diff/1190351180/1190687693 as a compromise measure to ensure that the text in question is verifiable. If you have other suggestions, please feel free to share them. — Newslinger talk 07:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source where the police state that they have identified over 30 nicknames he used in debate forums on over 40 websites (including VG and Aftenposten, which are named). These two websites should at least also be mentioned. Thismess (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restored quotes to citations of academic sources[edit]

I have restored the quotes in to the citations of academic sources that were originally removed in Special:Diff/1162526756, per WP:FQ, which states "A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source. This is especially helpful when the cited text is long or dense. A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible." There is no such policy or guideline that states that "quotes should only be used sparingly" in citations. Quotes assist readers and other editors in verifying citations, especially academic texts that are long or difficult to access. That is the basis of the {{Request quotation}} template.

Removing quotes from these sources has the effect of obscuring the sourcing, especially when the sourcing is ignored or overlooked, which is something that has been happening during the editing of this article; see Talk:Document.no/Archive 1 § Branding for details on how the academic sources cited in this article were being overlooked in favor of less reliable opinion pieces in newspapers.

For an example of how removing quotes from citations can damage the integrity of an article, in the article about the anti-Muslim writer Robert B. Spencer, similar edits Special:Diff/1172257513 and Special:Diff/1161711481 removed quotes from academic sources and also thinned the sourcing for that article, which caused other editors to inadvertently believe that the sourcing for that article was weaker than it actually was. It only became clear that the anti-Muslim descriptor was well-sourced after I reversed those edits in Special:Diff/1180138218. — Newslinger talk 06:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Anders Behring Breivik" (in Norwegian). 21 April 2023.

[1]