Talk:Document.no

Branding

This article was recently re-branded to fit the view that Document.no is anti-immigration, "hard right", anti-Islam (diff link). This fits well with how Norwegian left and especially far left views this website, but this view is not mainstream. For example, a quick Google search gave me an article published by Norwegian Union of Journalists, titled ["An example of polarization" https://journalisten.no/agenda-magasin-alternative-medier-documentno/et-kroneksempel-pa-polarisering/397160] , that describes Document.no as an alternative media site. Perhaps the regular contributors would like to weigh in? Pinging the two users with the most contributions: @JonFlaune:, @User2534:. Heptor (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The rebranding performed by User:Egulbrandsen in september 2020 is tendentious. Their first move was to categorize the publication as "islamphobic" (diff link). The users claims are supported by publications leaning to the "left" side of politics in Norway, damaging the neutrality of the article. Notice how labels such as "anti-immigration", "anti-muslim", far right and conpiracy theory are used in the very first two sentences, to make sure the website is labeled from the very start of the article. To top it off, Template:Islamophobia was added high up in the article, with no function but to label and stigmatize the publication. (diff link) --Bjarkan (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The consensus of high-quality academic sources, which are the most reliable available sources, clearly and unambiguously supports the "anti-immigration", "anti-Muslim"/"Islamophobic", "far-right", and "conspiracy theory" descriptors in the article. It would be inappropriate to introduce a false balance by presenting opinion pieces from newspapers as equivalent sources, or worse, by burying the academic consensus under opinion pieces from newspapers, as was done in Special:Diff/984816257 and then Special:Diff/986833556. Per this 2020 discussion, Document.no belongs in the {{Islamophobia}} template and the template belongs in this article. — Newslinger talk 07:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Your description of what the Journalisten article says is incomplete; while the article covers "Alternative media" ("Alternative medier") in general, the article does not directly say that Document.no is an "alternative media site". This is what the article actually says in the only paragraph that mentions Document.no (emphasis added):

Via sosiale medier ble overfallet likevel raskt spredt, og raskt plukket opp av de kontroversielle nettstedene Resett, Rights.no og Document.no. Document.nos omtale av overfallet ble delt over 9000 ganger i sosiale medier det første døgnet.

Via social media, however, the assault was quickly spread, and quickly picked up by the controversial websites Resett, Rights.no and Document.no. Document.co's mention of the assault was shared over 9,000 times on social media in the first 24 hours.

The actual words were "kontroversielle nettstedene", which translates to "controversial websites". A site being controversial does not preclude the site from being "anti-immigration", "far-right", "Islamophobic", or "anti-Muslim". A site being alternative would also not rule out any of the other descriptors; for example, see the academic source "Challenging Journalistic Authority: Media criticism in far-right alternative media", which is cited in this Wikipedia article. — Newslinger talk 07:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The following four high-quality academic sources all describe Document.no as "Islamophobic" or "anti-Muslim" (emphasis added):

In Norway, strongly anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant voices increasingly began to make themselves heard, and they would soon enter the mainstream media. The most influential website devoted to anti-Muslim discourse, document.no, later infamous for being the terrorist Anders Behring Breivik's favorite website, was founded in January 2003.

Eriksen, Thomas Hylland (18 November 2016). "Social Anthropology and the Shifting Discourses about Immigrants in Norway". Engaged Anthropology: Views from Scandinavia. Springer International. p. 105. ISBN 978-3-319-40484-4. Retrieved 22 October 2020 – via Google Books.

The day after the attacks, Hans Rustad—editor of the Norwegian anti-Muslim forum document.no where Breivik had been a frequent participant—revealed that "large parts" of 2083 were plagiarized from the Unabomber Manifesto, published in 1995 by anti-modernist and technology critic Ted Kaczynski, who carried out a series of 16 bomb attacks against universities and airline companies. [...] Is the claim correct? Well, not really. Three of 1516 pages are taken from the Unabomber Manifesto, from a section in which Kaczynski decries the left (substituted for multiculturalists by Breivik). The remaining 1513 pages come from elsewhere.

Gardell, Mattias (January 2014). "Crusader Dreams: Oslo 22/7, Islamophobia, and the Quest for a Monocultural Europe" (PDF). Terrorism and Political Violence. 26 (1). Taylor & Francis: 132. doi:10.1080/09546553.2014.849930. Retrieved 22 October 2020.

The most active among the more established anti-Muslim organisations are Stop Islamisation of Norway, Human Rights Service and Document.no.

Døving, Cora Alexa (20 February 2020). ""Muslims Are..."". In Hoffmann, Christhard; Moe, Vibeke (eds.). The Shifting Boundaries of Prejudice: Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in Contemporary Norway. Scandinavian University Press. doi:10.18261/978-82-15-03468-3-2019-09.

Øyvind Strømmen argues in his book, Det Mørke Nettet, that it is essential to understand the dangerous undercurrents of counter-jihad movements that flourish on the Internet. It was these chat forums and specialised sites, like 'Gates of Vienna' and Document.no, which steadily nourished Breivik with a constant stream of anti-immigrant, Islamophobic and xenophobic arguments and which provided a ready-tailored and adapted counter-jihad ideological framework.

Ranstorp, Magnus (2013). "'Lone Wolf Terrorism'. The Case of Anders Breivik". Sicherheit und Frieden. 31 (2). Nomos: 89. ISSN 0175-274X. JSTOR 24234145.

Moving all of these high-quality academic citations from the lead section to the bottom of the "Media and commentators" section, as was done in Special:Diff/984816257, and then claiming that there are no reliable sources describing Document.no as Islamophobic, as was done in Special:Diff/986833556, have the effect of whitewashing the article. I've restored these citations to the lead section and removed the {{Citation needed}} tag in Special:Diff/987250470. — Newslinger talk 21:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, deleting the is the proper course of action after locating high quality sources. Ideally, the high-quality sources should be moved to the body, and the low-quality tabloids deleted. Heptor (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Again we've seen blatant far-right POV pushing in this article, in a transparent attempt to whitewash the far right (as pointed out above by Newslinger), based on preposterous "arguments" unworthy of serious attention. The far-right website is not conservative, a term associated with the Conservative Party of Norway which is not far-right and not Islamophobic. That far-right Americans attempt to usurp the term conservative has no relevance in Norway where conservative refers to Erna Solberg and comparable individuals and not Breivik, Fjordman, Rustad and those people (the website sells Fjordman's book). --Egulbrandsen (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

No "far-left" sources were added, so the edit summary in Special:Diff/1052484956 does not make any sense. The overwhelming academic consensus is that Document.no is "Islamophobic"/"anti-Muslim", which is why these descriptors belong in the lead section. As WP:SOURCETYPES states, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." Opinion pieces published in newspapers (especially ones that are not authored by subject-matter experts) are not on the same level as high-quality academic sources, and there is no justification for prioritizing these opinion pieces over the high-quality academic sources. WP:RSOPINION recognizes "opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers" as "reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact", in contrast to high-quality academic sources, which are reliable for factual claims. — Newslinger talk 19:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Here's yet another high-quality academic source that unambiguously describes Document.no as a hotbed for Islamophobia and racism (emphasis added):

Many other examples of violent acts by those who subscribed to the Eurabia and the wider Great Replacement theory exist. I opened the chapter by discussing the terrorist attack of Anders Behring Breivik in Norway. The attack revealed a hidden sub-culture in Norway, simmering underneath on the Internet; a network of racist and Islamophobic groups operating around the country. One of the main forums for these politics was the online platform document.no, where Norwegian racists exchanged their views.

Bergmann, Eirikur (29 April 2021). "The Eurabia conspiracy theory". Europe: Continent of Conspiracies. Routledge. p. 47–48. doi:10.4324/9781003048640-3. ISBN 978-1-003-04864-0 – via ResearchGate.

— Newslinger talk 20:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Norwegian Centre Against Racism

The article's description of the Norwegian Centre Against Racism's position on Document.no is outdated. The article currently cites a 2014 PDF, whereas NCAR reported in 2021 that Document.no is now publishing anti-Muslim rhetoric aligned with far-right politics ("høyreekstreme"):

På Document.no finner vi utallige artikler preget av dette tankesettet, de fleste er ført i pennen av grunnleggeren og sjefsredaktøren av nettstedet. Det fremstår som uforståelig hvordan Rustad kan avvise at Dokument.no fremmer de samme synspunktene som høyreekstreme grupperinger. I en nylig publisert artikkel «Nettavisen om eksklusjon av Document», nekter han blankt for å fremme høyreekstreme standpunkter. Men som eksemplene over viser, – anvender han, i likhet med mange høyreekstreme, – en blanding av samtidspolitikk og middelalderhistorie for å mobilisere folk til anti-islamsk strid. En artikkel i The Economist avslører hvordan høyreekstremister i Europa og USA bruker korstogene som en kilde til inspirasjon og aktivisme, og som et argument for bruk av vold som en religiøs plikt. I forbindelse med mobiliseringen, hevder høyreekstreme ofte – slik også Rustad gjør, at muslimer i dag forsøker å erobre Europa slik deres forfedre gjorde, for eksempel da de invaderte den iberiske halvøy, Italia og Frankrike. Eller da det osmanske riket erobret store deler av Øst-Europa og nådde «The gates of Vienna». Denne retorikken, og spesielt de tre felttogene som anses for å ha stanset islams vekst i Europa, spiller en sentral rolle i den høyreekstreme diskursen, spesielt som ideologisk motivasjon. Det samme tankesettet og den samme retorikken preger nettstedet Document.no.

On Document.no we find countless articles characterized by this mindset, most of which are carried in the pen by the founder and editor-in-chief of the site. It appears incomprehensible how Rustad can reject the fact that Dokument.no promotes the same views as far-right groups. In a recently published article "Nettavisen on the exclusion of Document", he flatly denies promoting far-right views. But as the examples above show, like many right-wing extremists, he uses a mixture of contemporary politics and medieval history to mobilize people for anti-Islamic strife. An article in The Economist reveals how right-wing extremists in Europe and the United States use the Crusades as a source of inspiration and activism, and as an argument for the use of violence as a religious duty. In connection with the mobilization, far-right extremists often claim– as Rustad does, that Muslims today try to conquer Europe as their ancestors did, for example when they invaded the Iberian Peninsula, Italy and France. Or when the Ottoman Empire conquered much of Eastern Europe and reached the gates of Vienna. This rhetoric, and especially the three campaigns deemed to have halted the rise of Islam in Europe, plays a central role in the far-right discourse, especially as ideological motivation. The same mindset and rhetoric characterize the site Document.no.

—Sheikh, Mehreen (18 February 2021). "Documents høyreekstreme retorikk" [Document's far-right rhetoric]. Norwegian Centre Against Racism.

The article needs to be updated to reflect NCAR's current position. — Newslinger talk 07:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I have updated the article to reflect NCAR's 2021 position. Its 2014 position is retained in the "Reception" section, immediately before its current 2021 position. — Newslinger talk 06:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's English version of Document.no is slander and needs to be edited

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)