Talk:Document.no

Comment from USA correspondent for Document.no
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)


 * 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)


 * "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)
 * See 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Restored quotes to citations of academic sources
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 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)