Talk:Klassekampen

Expand
I removed some obscurities and less-than-neutral sentences to this article. Please expand.

--Thorsen 15:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Circulation?
This english article claims the papper has a curcilation of over 40.000. But according to the Norwegian wiki, it is less than 10.000, see "Opplag (2005): 8759". 19:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I added references for the current numbers. They should be credible. Angel-like (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Literary critic
Does someone have any references regarding Klassekampen's status in Norway "as a literary critic"? --85.196.118.210 (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Section about layout
If someone were to start a section about the layout of the newspaper, than what should be included?

One of the newspaper columns
Text which might be notable if there is a notable reference:

"Among its regular newspaper columns are "I saksa"

--85.196.118.210 (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Klassekampen. 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/20070927115859/http://mediebedriftene.no/index.asp?id=71672 to http://mediebedriftene.no/index.asp?id=71672
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717072430/http://www.mediebedriftene.no/index.asp?id=79210&open=79210 to http://www.mediebedriftene.no/index.asp?id=79210&open=79210

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) 00:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Klassekampen. 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/20110717072334/http://www.mediebedriftene.no/index.asp?id=76944 to http://www.mediebedriftene.no/index.asp?id=76944

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) 10:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Bias
One single user (Svantetos) has basically wrecked the article. Through bias, cherrypicking and outright falsehoods, the user has created an article that inflates the importance of certain controversial elements (purported anti-trans attitudes and links to the alt-right/alternative media), while obscuring core points. The motivation is obviously to de-legitimize the publication, not to inform. Wikipedia should not be used as a tool for advancing one's own activist agenda, but a source of neutral information.

In short, the article needs to be completely re-written, and the user Svantetos should be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.67.121 (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a controversial newspaper. It has always been known for controversial views on a number of issues, and we as an encyclopedia are going to cover it from an encylopedic perspective, including the controversies such as the publication of authors such as Israel Shamir or the criticism from the large newspapers (Aftenposten, Dagbladet) for its pro-Russian articles, or the criticism in recent years from the LGBT+ rights organizations for its coverage of LGBT+ issues. If you are affiliated with or work for this publication, you should refrain from editing the article (Conflict of interest). --Svantetos (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. There is no "we" at work here. You are the sole user who has expanded on this article since the turn of the year. Let us at least be honest about that.
 * 2. At no point have you covered this from an encyclopedic perspective. Recently, you added "Trans-exclusionary radical feminism" and, later on, "Anti-gender movement" to the list of Klassekampen's political beliefs in the fact box. This is your opinion, which you are of course entitled to. But opinions with no facual basis do not belong in a Wikipedia entry. You consistently fall short on this basic principle.
 * 3. You do not cover issues "including" controversies. You limit yourself exclusively to points of contention, leaving out crucial parts of the story. Your mention of Israel Shamir is a case in point. He was indeed published in Klassekampen (and Morgenbladet) years ago. But you fail to mention that Klassekampen exposed him as a fraud who had operated under an alias, and that he was fired.
 * Let me offer an example you can perhaps understand. The statement "Aftenposten is a former nazi newspaper which consistently supported Adolf Hitler before and during World War II" is true. But it is obviously misleading to limit onself to that one sentence when describing Aftenposten's political orientation.
 * 4. I am indeed affiliated with Klassekampen, as anyone capable of an IP lookup can find out. However, my attempts at setting the record straight represent self defense against malicious edits that aim to discredit Klassekampen. Ideally, the Wikipedia community would sort this out without my involvement. Unfortunately, you have been vandalised the article without anyone else getting involved.
 * 5. As for conflicts of interest, it would be helpful if you would clarify what organizations or media institutions you represent yourself. It seems unlikely that you are a disinterested party here. 195.159.243.250 (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You have just admitted to engage in undisclosed paid editing, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. You are required to follow the rules set out on Paid-contribution disclosure and Conflict of interest, also when participating on talk pages. Note that you are "strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead" (per the latter guideline).
 * I do not represent any organizations or media institutions, and have no conflict of interest here or in any other article I've involved myself in. Note that having a personal opinion or an opinion on which material that should be presented and how is not the same as having a conflict of interest on Wikipedia.
 * As for the rest of your comment: If you are at any time able to refrain from making personal attacks and make constructive comments, I'm happy to engage with them in the future. --Svantetos (talk) 02:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. I am no longer editing. I am using the talk page to explaim how the article has been compromised.
 * 2. These are not personal attacks, they are arguments. If you are at any time able to refrain from shifting the blame onto the victim, I'll be happy to take part in a discussion. 195.159.243.250 (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A number of commentators have criticized Klassekampen for victimizing minorities and specifically for having a long track record of publishing blatant transphobia ("Det ser ut til at avisen har få problemer med å bidra til svært stygge omtaler av mennesker som allerede lider under sterkt minoritetsstress"; ). The fact that the criticism is reflected in this article does not make the newspaper a victim of anything other than its own hardline views and the critical response they have generated in the broader society.


 * Controversial individuals, organizations or media enterprises are seldom happy with the Wikipedia articles about them. Compare: The rather critical article about another Norwegian newspaper/website, Document.no, which does not at all reflect the self-perception of the publishers of that publication. There are numerous other examples here of rather critical articles about blogs, newspapers, or organizations known for controversial views. Wikipedia does not offer free hosting, the subjects that we write about don't own the articles about them, and Klassekampen does not have the right to dictate the content of this article. Having a criticism-free article is certainly not a right, nor is it neutral or encyclopedic. --Svantetos (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * First off, the criticism from the LBGT+ community obviously warrants a treatment here. The same thing goes for the criticism about coverage of Russia. They are, in a word, relevant. However, one must as HOW pertinent they are when dealing, as you say "with the enire history" of Klassekampen. There is no reason why 80 percent of the article should deal exclusively with these issues. Compare with the Norwegian article on Klassekampen, where these issues are also given a treatment.
 * Second, you are promoting claims from a handful of individuals to facts. Claiming that Klassekampen's political orientation is be "trans-exclusionary radical feminism" is an example. It is not an opinion held by "broader society," and it is certainly not a fact. 195.159.243.250 (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * This was a short 7,145 bytes article when I started working on it and is now an 18,494 bytes article, which is less than a typical fully developed article. The material on controversies is not in any way excessive; it's of a reasonable length. It doesn't make sense to talk about percentages for a rather short article that is still under development. Instead material on other parts of the paper's history should be expanded. --Svantetos (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The edits made by the anonymous user Svantetos are treated in a recent news article by the Norwegian weekly Morgenbladet. 195.159.243.252 (talk) 12:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Who cares? Document.no appears to have complained a lot about the article about them too. The same goes for pretty much every controversial outlet out there, when the articles about them accurately describe their controversial views and include the criticism of them, in this case the criticism for Putin apologia and a string of anti-trans articles. Wikipedia editors are encouraged to be "anonymous", btw. The real issue here is how Klassekampen, in blatant violation of Wikipedia policy, has attempted to control the article about them and remove reliably sourced criticism. --Svantetos (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Paid contributions?
I have checked the history of this article back to the beginning of 2022. It seems to me that most editing by IPs have been reverted or accepted as good contributions. One IP has verified his/hers affiliation to the paper and stopped direct editing when cautioned. I therefore propose that the warning template be deleted. Regards, GAD (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me. (He/she didn't stop immediately, but seems to have stopped now) --Svantetos (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)