Talk:Document.no/Archive 1

WP:UNDUE
The lengthy discussion of Anders Breveik's connection to this website appears to be entirely WP:UNDUE.Griswaldo (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Vancouver Sun citing Lars Gule despite his terrorist background
I've noticed that you cite "The Vancouver Sun" as one of your sources were they again cite Lars Gule as a "researcher", but this means that the Vancouver Sun is citing a fairly known terrorist themselves. Check out Lars Gules own page on Wikipedia, and you'll quickly see that he's from the extreme opposite corner of the political scale, and thus is hardly a good source for defining Document.no, and only tells me that Vancouver Sun has been seriously mislead by this figure. Strictly speaking, it's strange to see that media have no second thoughts about interviewing a leftwing terrorist like Gule. At least this reference should be ruled unfit for use here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.19.145.78 (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Biased characterizations of Document.no in the media
This article makes several implications that need to be supported.

1. According to Aftenposten, There is a significant relationship in Document.no between a "pro Israeli" attitude and Islamphobia. Is this relationship actually in the Aftenposten article (I cannot read Norwegian) or is it original research by the writer of the Wikipedia article?

2. Is the endorsement of Document.no's critique of Norwegian journalism by a prominent Jew sufficient evidence to conclude that Document.no is pro Israeli, and therefore Islamphobic? Perhaps this sentence could be broken into two parts, first adding evidence that endorsement by a prominent Jew of an article in Document.no demonstrates that Document.no is pro Israel, and the second part adding evidence that Document.no is pro Israeli, and therefore Islamophobic.

Sorry for my poor match of Wikipedia style. I am quite new to Wikipedia editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.116.249.117 (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The Aftenposten article describes the website as "en islamkritisk og israelvennlig såkalt blåblogg" ([an Islam-critical and Israel-friendly so-called blue blog]"). This is a direct quote. The website is chiefly known in Norway for its pro-Israel stance and has extensive coverage of everything related to the Middle East conflict, from a pro-Israeli viewpoint, and also for articles critical of Islam/"multiculturalism" and articles critical of the Norwegian media and political establishment. The praise of the website from the student group was in the article before the terrorist attack, and I see no reason to remove it. JonFlaune (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstood my point. I did not claim that the praise by Yvonne Rundberg Savosnick constitutes endorsement by her of right wing terrorism, but rather that her agreement with Document.no's view of the Norwegian press has anything to do with Document.no's alleged islamphobia. Possibly indicating that she is somehow supportive of islamphobia.  Could you please clarify what the relationship (if any) is between her statement and Document.no's alleged islamphobia, other than her being a prominent Jew?  I think the issue is not the bombing:  It is rather the anti-jewish undertone and implications of this paragraph.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.116.249.117 (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The article does not imply any relationship between islamophobia and her comment. In the interview, she states she is strongly critical of the mainstream Norwegian media, and that she recommends document.no for this reason. There is nothing anti-Jewish about reporting what she said in an interview, which was included in the article long before the site became linked to terrorism. Document.no has a long-standing reputation as an Anti-Islam, Pro-Israel website, so she certainly knew what she was doing when she recommended the site. JonFlaune (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The mixing in the first block of the article of "supportive of Israel" and "islamophobic" gives the impression of some relationship between these topics. Unless of course that is your intention, in which case you could make it more explicit. 99.116.249.117 (talk)George Vamos  —Preceding undated comment added 19:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC).


 * Er, this material was in the introduction of the article long before I made any edits to it. Certainly other people's edits are not my responsibility, and I certainly don't have any "intention" with other people's edits. JonFlaune (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * For clarification, try the following thought experiment: Imagine a section containing entries on both "gay" and "child molester", "right wing" and "fascist" or "subsidized health care" and "communism" (in the US.)  Proximity of these sort of entries can turn any reasoned discussion into a nasty brawl.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.116.249.117 (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I just amended the section "Praise" as much of the translation was slightly wrong or omitted important words. I'm not sure this should be titled praise as she said "she rarely agreed with everything on the site" that implies that she disagreed with most of it. --213.246.175.162 (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Her answers is tongue-in-cheek and it is difficult to say to what extent we should take her on her words other then that we should not take them too literally. In fact, the only thing we know for sure is that she, informally and with some degree of caution, recomends the site for its critical eye on the press in Norway. Steinberger (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with your interpretation and I'm not sure how notable these comments are. Anyway I'm changing it back to "rarely agree" as that is a better translation of sjelden see http://dictionary.sensagent.com/sjelden/no-en/ and it currently has a grammatical error in the English. --87.115.248.138 (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Aftenposten's characterization of Document.no as "an Islam-critical and Israel-friendly, so-called blue-blog" is precise. The other characterizations, or accusations, are not. This is a "in the heat of the moment" thing, everybody is shook up and looking for something and someone to put the blame on. Document.no is now being singled out because Breivik posted a total of 70-80 comments there in 2009 and 2010. It does not serve the article to present Document.no as an extreme right-wing website because some political opponents are labeling it as such in the aftermath of this horrible tragedy. Gus 123 (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We just report what reliable sources report, not editors' personal opinions of whether the reliable sources' assessments are "correct". Der Spiegel, the Financial Times and the Washington Post are all reliable quality sources, even more so than a less widely known non-English newspaper. The Aftenposten assessment is included in the article, but note that it is several years old. In light of the recent events, the Norwegian researcher Lars Gule has described the website as "anti-immigrant and Islamophobic" and part of the Norwegian far right. Until July 2011, this blog was a small fringe website few had heard of anyway, so most media coverage obviously is related to the incident which made this website infamous on a global scale.


 * Also, it's not true that he simply posted comments, he attended meetings of the organisation and discussed plans for starting a magazine with the owners. JonFlaune (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The blog had up to 40,000 unique views per week (which I'll add to the article), which hardly can make it a "fringe blog" by Norwegian standards, although the mainstream media of course has done its best to deny its very existence (up until a few days ago). – Bellatores (t.) 00:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A more recent assessment is found here: . The website is described as an "anti-immigrant forum which has evolved into a hotbed of galloping Islamophobia". JonFlaune (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Problematic edits by User:JonFlaune to this section
User JonFlaune is repeatedly making and reverting edits of this particular section without any discussion here. In my opinion his edits are trying to show an endorsement of document.no by someone (Savosnick) who clearly disagrees with it (though his edits are generally not annotated or clear). There is an argument to say "recommended" is the correct phrase to use but I believe it leaves some ambiguity and is not necessary when there are other better words that can be used that are not as contentious. I hope we can find a solution rather by discussion but in the meantime the previous version should be left up. --84.215.153.97 (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

NPOV, verifiabillity, etc
It seems like this article is a mixture of gossip, indignation and moralism, and a number of sources that are stretched even further than usual. I would say it should be stripped for everything that is not factual, but then it would be nothing left about the right&hellip; Right now the whole article is about what someone thinks about the site, with some references to what other thinks and believes about the site. Clean it up (read delete the junk) and make a decent article about the site and what it really is about? Jeblad (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This is wrong, it is a center-right wing website for bloggers and citizen journalism.
 * Document.no is a Norwegian far-right nationalist website

First sentence is correct, rest is pure media hype
 * The blog received global media attention in July 2011 as a result of its links to admitted terrorist Anders Behring Breivik. According to the Financial Times, document.no is "a website rife with anti-Muslim and hard right rhetoric." The Vancouver Sun describes it as "a far-right web forum" that is "dominated by Islamophobic and anti-immigration commentary".

Whole "Reception" section is gossip, nonsense and reference shopping.

The whole section about Anders Behring Breivik seems like pure name dropping, I wonder whats the real reasoning behind this. Mister Breivik has lived in Norway for several years and his name will be found at several sites and newspapers. Many of the newspapers have also tried to screen their blogs to identify him. I he has been writing on a website or not, or if he has attended a meeting or not, is really of no interests. Write about he as a person in a biography about him, don't pollute articles that really isn't about him at all.

It would not be much left of the article, &hellip; I don't want to edit this article, it seems like some of the persons involved is a bit to much trigger happy, but I do believe it needs a cleanup. Jeblad (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikiprojects listed above
I've not removed them yet but many of the projects this website has been categorised under seem unrelated or very tenuous at the least. For example, Judaism, Jewish History, Islam, Computing. I may as well add Wikipedia to the list of categories as the article is on Wikipedia. Any comments on this? 84.215.224.222 (talk) 11:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Document.no. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20140201171837/http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=c2f1e2ba-deaf-4132-b8d7-077be54f2723 to http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=c2f1e2ba-deaf-4132-b8d7-077be54f2723

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Document.no. 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/20110726235222/http://www.aftenposten.no/kul_und/article4184153.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/kul_und/article4184153.ece
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121219070959/http://www.klassekampen.no:80/36145/mod_article/item to http://www.klassekampen.no/36145/mod_article/item
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150121183757/http://stavrum.nettavisen.no/tor-ikke-nrk-ta-debatten/ to http://stavrum.nettavisen.no/tor-ikke-nrk-ta-debatten/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=c2f1e2ba-deaf-4132-b8d7-077be54f2723
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509101220/http://www.pfu.no/case.php?id=2535 to http://www.pfu.no/case.php?id=2535

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Document.no. 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/20120315165111/http://www.nb.no/nati/index.php?side=sok&func=sok&type=ompub&pub_nr=3139 to http://www.nb.no/nati/index.php?side=sok&func=sok&type=ompub&pub_nr=3139
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130222195638/http://www.idag.no/aktuelt-oppslag.php3?ID=18592 to http://www.idag.no/aktuelt-oppslag.php3?ID=18592
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110805024048/http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article4181274.ece to http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article4181274.ece
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717135849/http://www.klassekampen.no/55777/article/item/null to http://www.klassekampen.no/55777/article/item/null

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) 23:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Blue blog?
Not sure it is correct to call this site a "blue blog". It started out as a blue blog, perhaps somewhat to the right of mainstream blue blogs, but has moved further right. It tries to make the impression of being mainstream, but it is not. Jeblad (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Unique visitors
Original statement in article: "By 2011, the website reached an audience of up to 40,000 unique visitors every week" (citing a 2011 interview with Lars Gule). That number seems quite unlikely, in my opinion. Another news article from 2014 (http://www.klassekampen.no/article/20140122/ARTICLE/140129989/1007) claims the number is 52.000 unique users A MONTH,which seems much more likely. Acorngrain (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:10, 30 May 2014 (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"):

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)

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:,. 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):


 * 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):

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):


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

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

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:

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)


 * 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)