Talk:Nyheter Idag

Regarding changes of the article on SD-connections
Original phrasing was that the site itself had stated being positive to SD and not willing to do anything to harm the party.

1. However, the referred article clearly states that this was part of an e-mail conversation / sales pitch between Chang Frick and Martin Kinnunen. Consequently, it was never an on-the-record statement from Nyheter Idag.

2. "Would never harm the party" also has no support in the reference. In the text Kinnunen does not want NI to run negative articles on the party. Frick responds by saying that they're not intending to harm the party, but they still want to have a normal and healthy scrutiny of the party.

Here is the relevant quote that everything is based on:

Martin Kinnunen: "Ja allt beror på vad ni värderar högst. Kör ni ut negativa artiklar om partiet så försämras givetvis våra relationer sedan hur dåliga de blir beror ju på hur dåliga artiklarna är." ("Yes, everything depends on what you value the most. If you run negative articles on the party then that will obviously negatively affect our relations, and how negative the effects are obviously depends on how harmful the articles are for us")

Chang Frick: "Vi är ju inte ute efter att försöka sänka eller göra skada (det tror jag ni förstår), däremot att ha normal/sund granskning och lite ´avslöjande´ etc tror jag vi som tidning har att vinna på. Men det är väl lite balansgång det där, som allt annat." ("We're not interested in trying to bring you down or harm you (I think you understand that), however we want a normal/healthy scrutiny and a few 'exposés' etc is something I believe is good for us as a newspaper. But I guess it's something of a balancing act, like with everything else"

Hmc1282171021 (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Racist site
If a reliable source reports that the site is a racist site it can go into the article per WP:RS and you should avoid WP:WEASEL. // Liftarn (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

These are opinion pieces without any evidence or examples whatsoever. All that was stated in the articles was that LO had checked up to what degree people shared articles from sites that they considered racist. There was no study with proof for the claims.

Similarly, the Metro newspapter simply stated that their former owner was interviewed by Nyheter Idag, and offhandedly called it racist in conjunction, also without any proof whatsoever.

These are the very definition of unfounded accusations, and there is nothing remotely connected to weasel-words to simply state them as such.

It is however blatant slander to state racism as a fact without proof, and the times that I have read the newspaper, I have never noticed any indication that the journalists there hate dark-skinned people. In fact, a large part of Chang Frick's friends are immigrants, as he lives in one of the classified "particularly exposed areas" of Sweden, or so he has stated.

Or to put it another way, just because several people claim that the Earth is flat, or believe in creationism, this does not make them empirical facts without evidence, just empty ideological propaganda. David A (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * They are not opinion pieces as far as I can see. If a reliable source says something it is all the proof we need. I'm afraid reliable sources beat your feelings. Also see Reliable sources/Noticeboard // Liftarn (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Then you need to read them, as least one has this one the page (near the top) "OPINION".Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please keep the discussion in one place. // Liftarn (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

POV tag
This page references offhanded mentions from pure opinion piece columns to smear this newspaper as a supposedly racist site, without offering any proof whatsoever, and in addition quotes the obscure far-left Expo magazine, which only has 7500 readers. The current wording is not remotely reliable or NPOV, it constitutes a onesided character assassination attempt. My view of this has not changed from the previous discussion. David A (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No it don't. All is sourced from reliable sources (and that includes Expo that has support from the entire political spectrum, the only ones who claim it's far left is the far right.). I'm afraid your view is not relevant for the content of Wikipedia. Only reliable sources are. // Liftarn (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Opinion columns that simply mention Nyheter Idag and the word racist as one-sentence afterthought accusations, without providing any examples for proof, and do not even treat them as the actual point of the articles, are not reliable sources, and Expo strictly examines Nazis and racists (which is good), while completely ignoring the much greater number of Communists and Islamists in Sweden, and yes, it is still extremely obscure in terms of popularity, regardless if it is feared by most other journalists and politicians. David A (talk) 12:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No opinion columns were used as sources as they are not reliable for anything except the author's own opinion (that may be reliable if said author is an expert in the field). Your personal opinion on Expo is of no relevance as it's considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. So, one lie and one opinion. You have to try a bit harder. // Liftarn (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * According to wikipedia Expo: 'In 2014 the circulation of the magazine was 3,500 copies.' Not 7500! Expo is just a 'cheap' antifa-pamphlet for activists; its authority is zero. What we need is research by a respected source, say a quality newspaper - or a scholar.Gerard1453 (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Expo is a respected source and considered to be reliable by Wikipedia standards. Your opinion does not matter. Reliable sources do. // Liftarn (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is very interesting to note that the Swedish wikipedia is much more ordered, has a much more balanced and neutral attitude towards the subject. It also notes that Nyheter i tag no longer has connections with the Swedish Democrats: "Sedan dess har Nyheter Idag inte längre någon koppling till Sverigedemokraterna". The English wiki has to be cleaned up or otherwise deleted. Gerard1453 (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said before, bring reliable sources. // Liftarn (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I recurrently misremember or misinterpret things, but given my autism outright lying is extremely unnatural to me, and I consistently trust statistical facts over fundamentalist political ideology.

Here are the sources for the so called racism of Nyheter Idag:

https://ng.se/artiklar/brakrecap-metro ("Metros ägare låter sig intervjuas i den rasistiska tidningen Nyheter Idag och de anställda flyr Sveriges största dagstidning i panik.")

This is a pure offhanded opinion in conjunction to an interview by Metro's then owner in the newspaper with no offered proof.

http://omni.se/lo-svenskar-sprider-mindre-fran-rasistiska-sajter/a/36lxv ("Svenskarnas intresse av att sprida, kommentera och gillamarkera material från SD-anknutna, ofta rasistiska, sajter minskar kraftigt.")

Again, no proof, just a statement from LO that Swedes are sharing fewer articles from Nyheter Idag, and lumping them together with far more extreme news sites.

https://svenska.yle.fi/artikel/2016/10/02/varning-lita-inte-pa-de-har-sa-kallade-nyhetssajterna ("Enligt Landsorganisationen i Sveriges granskning har intresset för rasistsajter minskat dramatiskt i sociala medier.")

Another unproven opinion referencing the above mentioned LO survey about sharing of articles.

https://ng.se/artiklar/snart-inga-artister-kvar-till-sds-sommarfestival ("Som plåster på såren hävde Johansen ur sig en judekonspiratorisk groda om att "Rothchild äger Reuters" när den rasistiska sajten Nyheter Idag intervjuade honom efteråt.")

Johansen really does seem like an antisemitic bastard, but there is still only an offhanded mention of Nyheter Idag, with no proof.

http://www.dagensarena.se/innehall/sa-har-rasistsajterna-rasat-i-sociala-medier/ ("I november i fjol delades material från rasistiska sajter flitigt. Då fick artiklar från SD-anknutna sajter som Axpixlat, Fria Tider, Samtiden och Nyheter Idag nära en halv miljon reaktioner.")

Another reference to the LO survey of the sharing of their articles, with no proof whatsoever of actual rasist content produced by Nyheter Idag. David A (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "Proof" is not needed, actually that would be considered WP:OR. What we use is WP:RS. That you personally don't like what the sources say is actually totally irrelevant. // Liftarn (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It is pure offhanded opinion that you cite as fact, and somehow deem far more relevant than actual proof. This is completely insane for the reliability of an encyclopaedia. David A (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, no, reliable sources that actually provide evidence for their claims are not considered as original research. David A (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * We have already been over this and they are judged reliable sources for what they claim. You are entitled to your own opinion (as long as you don't put them in Wikipedia articles), but you are not entitled to your own facts (i.e. you have to use reliable sources and follow what they say). Please stop beating a dead horse. // Liftarn (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I am the one constantly citing facts/statistics, whereas you are the one constantly citing opinion pieces, remember? And I do not remember that anybody ever agreed with your inclusion of these references. If they had been indepth treatises in why Nyheter Idag is supposed to be racist, then Wikipedia might consider them as reliable, but offhanded mentions? Not so much, so yes, to borrow your own words, stop beating a dead horse, and using manipulative insincere rhetorics in general. David A (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You try to bring in irrelevant URLs. Why I have no idea as I have on multiple occasions tried to educate you about WP:RS. If they say nothing about the subject of the article you can't use them. 1) They are not opinion pieces. just because you repeat it doen't make it any more true. 2) They have already been discussed and found reliable. // Liftarn (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) How are they not unfounded opinions mentioned offhandedly? 2) They have not been found reliable by anybody other than yourself as far as I remember, and such sources are usually instantly rejected at more well-monitored pages such as the Southern Poverty Law Centre. David A (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Since the two of us evidently cannot properly communicate with each other, I have requested mediation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Nyheter_Idag David A (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It was not accepted, so I went here instead:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Nyheter_Idag David A (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)