Talk:Resett

May 2022

Up to this point, this page was created and edited by a single user with, it seems, a political bias. My recent edits are translations of passages from the Norwegian edition which has been extensively reviewed and edited. As such, I believe my edits establish a baseline NPOV. Enesset (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

From the article history, I can see that you started an edit war (beginning with Special:Diff/1093384230) to entirely replace the article content with your preferred version, removing numerous citations of high-quality academic sources along the way. The removal of these sources, which are among the most reliable sources available, causes the article to violate the due weight policy (part of the neutrality policy) via omission. Content on other-language Wikipedias is irrelevant to the content here, since each Wikipedia has its own set of policies and guidelines.

I will be reviewing and restoring the inappropriately removed content to correct the article's violation of the due weight policy. Svantetos, are the sources you listed in the discussion below the only academic sources you have for this topic, or are there more? — Newslinger talk 03:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

If you read the papers in question (Brekke, Vaagen, Figenschou & Ustad), you will see that they do not support the claims made in the initial version of this article. Namely, they do not provide research which labels Resett as "far right". Furthermore, not all papers were published at the time the WP article was created. Basing the English article on a well-maintained Norwegian article therefore makes sense to me. Enesset (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

We have problems here that appear to be quite similar to the problems the article Document.no has evidently experienced in the past, with a new editor attempting to whitewash this far-right publication (compare the RW article[1]), remove all scholarly sources etc., essentially by blanking the original, well-sourced and encyclopedic article to replace it with their own highly biased and promotional version.

Also note the false edit summaries, falsely claiming the new whitewashed version that they promote is "the stable version", despite being no such thing (it's the other way round), but rather a new biased text just introduced and only promoted by that new editor (an editor with just a handful of edits, all promoting Resett/the Norwegian far right).

Also note the false claims that their edits are reverted because of someone's status as transgender, and not because they blank an article, remove scholarly sources and replace it with a text that promotes a far-right publication. (I believe that baseless and bizarre assertion is made just because I have written about LGBT+ issues, organizations and transphobia in other contexts, as a way of trolling, which is very typical of this publication, btw.). --Svantetos (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The Norwegian page on Resett has been extensively edited by senior Wikipedia editors for years. Svantetos stated the English page and is writing with a very different point of view, one where all information about the transgender editor and the refugee status of contributors is removed. Instead, labels of "far-right" is attached; these are not present in the Norwegian page. As such, I believe Svantetos is promoting personal political views.

I have therefore translated segments from the Norwegian page to form a NPOV. If Svantetos believe his/her references are worthy, he/she should first try add them to the Norwegian page. Enesset (talk) 07:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source. Please stop blanking the existing article and removing sourced content, including all scholarly sources. Wikipedia is also not a place to promote this far-right (per e.g. references 2,3) website. I have no obligation to take part on other Wikimedia projects (incidentally the Norwegian article appears to be heavily targeted/influenced by the owners or supporters of this website, and the project doesn't seem to enforce rules against COI/PAID editing); instead this article is based on solid scholarly sources written by reputable Norwegian media scholars and experts on alternative media, and published in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, like scholarly journals such as Journalism Studies.

You are required to obtain consensus for your proposed changes to the existing article here on the talk page. Blanking the entire article, removing all scholarly sources, and then replacing it with a new biased low-quality, promotional text is vandalism. For example, you have not explained why you removed the following sources and the statements that they support:

• Ihlebæk, Karoline Andrea; Figenschou, Tine Ustad (2022). "Knock, knock! Right-wing alternative media is at the door". In Ferrucci, Patrick; Eldridge, Scott A. (eds.). The Institutions Changing Journalism. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003140399. ISBN 9781003140399.
• Figenschou, Tine Ustad; Ihlebæk, Karoline Andrea (2019). "Challenging Journalistic Authority: Media criticism in far-right alternative media". Journalism Studies. 20 (9). doi:10.1080/1461670X.2018.1500868.
• Vaagan, Robert Wallace (2020). "Political rhetoric, populism, leadership and intercultural communication". In Dreijers, Guntars (ed.). Bridging Languages and Cultures. Frank & Timme. pp. 227–244. ISBN 9783732907052.
• Brekke, Torkel (2019). "Christianity Betrayed: Conspiracy Theory about a Leftist-Muslim Plot against Christianity in Norway". Journal of Religion and Society. 21.
• "Her er ekkokammeret som gjør alternative medier til virale vinnere". Faktisk.no. Retrieved 16 June 2022.

and several others.

I have not removed anything about someone's transgender status. I have simply restored the original, existing article before you blanked it and removed sourced content. If you want to include something about someone's transgender status, the correct way to go about it is to add it, or propose to add it, to the existing article. It might not necessarily be relevant/WP:DUE for this article, especially the personal histories or backgrounds of individual, regular writers (which was the case when you attempted to add it to the article). Like numerous other far-right outlets, Resett is known for using the personal (minority) backgrounds of one or two people associated with the website as a shield against the criticism for e.g. racist, anti-LGBT+ content (such as the website's dedicated harassment campaign against a 20-year old Somali-Norwegian writer who was described by the website e.g. as "the tip of the heavy Somali breeding spear that has been thrown into Norway"[2]). --Svantetos (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Your references are obscure, seemingly from a fringe academic group. Further, they are not generally available. Do do you have access to these papers? If so, please email them to me (enesset@protonmail.com). You can do so without breach of copyright in Norway. Enesset (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

You may very well regard regard Journalism Studies, Routledge books and other easily accessible, high-quality Wikipedia:Reliable sources as obscure compared to your own "sources" (links to far-right blogs), and reputable Norwegian media scholars and professors of journalism/media studies as "fringe" (which is really rich coming from someone promoting a far-right fringe blog), but seeing that you continue to vandalize/blank the article, I'm under no obligation to waste my time on that sort of rubbish. --Svantetos (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I have not received any evidence that Svantetos have access to, nor have read, the papers which are being referenced as authoritative. It would have been easy, and legal, to email me these papers. This is a strong indication that the references have been searched out as part of a personal campaign, without the necessary neutral assessment which WP editors must strive for. Enesset (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not my job to e-mail you articles from mainstream Wikipedia:Reliable sources that are easily accessible. In fact, you cannot demand that Wikipedia users send you e-mails at all. --Svantetos (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I have now found three of the four "scholarly articles" referenced by Svantetos:

• Brekke's article ("Christianity Betrayed...") does not refer to Resett as "far-right" or "islamophobic"
• Vaagen's article ("Politcal rhetoric...") does not refer to Resett as "far-right" or "islamophobic"
• Figenschou/Ustads's article ("Challenging Journalistic Authority...") refers to Resett only in one footnote stating that Resett was "Launched after the data were collected". So, Resett is explicitly not part of the study.

The fourth article (by Figenschou/Ustad: "Knock, knock! Right-wing alternative media is at the door") is part of a book which is not yet published. The publisher states that "Item will ship after July 21, 2022". This is a strong indication that Svantetos is, or has a close relationship with, the author. Naturally, a WP:CONFLICT Enesset (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

More blatantly false and disruptive claims by an editor whose entire edit history consists of far-right POV pushing and blanking of this article. The article by Figenschou/Ustad has a doi and is accessible from Taylor & Francis' website, and is even on Google Books[3]. So no, I don't need to be Figenschou/Ustad to have access to that article, but such blatant falsehoods just demonstrate the extent of how an editor pushing far-right POV is allowed to disrupt this article. These days, articles tend to be available months in advance of "official publication dates" or before print versions of books ship, as most people who has ever read a scholarly article or book know. --Svantetos (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Having access to preprints is a strong indication of a close relationship with the authors. Be that as it may, the visible pages from Google Docs show no use of the term "far right" or "islamophopia". So, none of the "scholarly articles" you have listed can be used to smear Resett Enesset (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Having access to preprints is not "a strong indication of a close relationship with the authors"; there are many sites online, such as Academia.edu and ResearchGate, through which academics release open access preprints for the benefit of researchers and readers like us.

Per the WP:PAYWALL policy, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." If you are not able to access a source, you are welcome to request access through the resource exchange or see if access is available through The Wikipedia Library. It is unacceptable to delete reliable sources from the article just because they are paywalled. — Newslinger talk 03:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Establishing neutral point of view (NPOV)

This article has been the target of what seems to be a personal campaign against a Norwegian online newspaper. The newspaper has an WP article in Norwegian, and this page has been widely edited for years, by senior WP editors. The Norwegian page has the necessary neutral point of view and it includes recent references.

Svantetos started the English page, which has a very different point of view. Svantetos uses labels like "far-right" and "islamophobia" to smear Resett. The editor of Resett is transgender and several of the authors/journalists have an ethnic background different from Norwegian. This information is consistently deleted by Svantetos. Futher, Svantetos references papers that he/she probably does not have access to.

To establish a NPOV, I have therefore translated sections from the Norwegian page to English. While these should not necessarily stay synchronized, it would seem natural to have the same tenor.

Anyone who would like to investigate should go to resett.no and see if the articles you find there are far-right? Or islamophobic? Not so. Use translation tools if you have to; it's easy to verify that these claims are false.

Enesset (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to promote your website. On Wikipedia we also rely on Wikipedia:Reliable sources, such as the numerous scholarly sources that you removed, not editors' personal opinions from reading the website, in this case a far-right blog. Wikipedia is not a source, particularly not a Wikipedia article in a foreign language which seems to have been heavily influenced by the owners of the website, on a small project that doesn't enforce rules against WP:COI and WP:PAID editing. --Svantetos (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The "scholars" Svantetos refers to are minor figures in the Norwegian academic landscape, none of them have English-language WP articles. Torkel Brekke's article is noteworthy, but only because he writes about another person (Mr. Selle) without disclosing that the two are political opponents; they have both stood for elections to the Norwegian Parliament. The mentioning of Resett in his article is peripheral with no underlying analysis. Enesset (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Laughable. The scholars, such as no:Tine Ustad Figenschou, are prominent media scholars and leading researchers on alternative media and the right wing landscape in Norway. --Svantetos (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be two colleagues (Ihlebæk/Figenschou) working as a group in one university, publishing in journals few have access to. It remains unclear how these authors, if at all, claim Resett is "far-right" or "islamophobic". The other cited authors (Brekke/Vaagan) do not claim Resett is "far-right" og "islamophobic". As such, there is no basis for making these claims. Enesset (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Sources are not required to cover all aspects of an article subject. That a source does not cover an aspect of a subject does not mean that the aspect is not true. To counter a high-quality academic source stating that Ressett is far-right or Islamophobic, you would need a high-quality academic source which explicitly makes a claim that contradicts this. Please also see WP:PAYWALL; reliable sources are not removed from the article just because an editor lacks access to them. — Newslinger talk 03:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem with the papers in question is not that they don't cover all aspects of the WP article, the problem is that they do not support the claims attributed to them by Svantetos. There is no "high-quality academic source" claiming that Resett is "far-right" or "islamophobic". Read them, and you'll see. Enesset (talk) 09:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Protected

@Enesset and Svantetos: Because the two of you have been edit-warring here, I have fully protected the page temporarily. Since it looks like you're at an impasse in the discussion above, may I suggest getting a third opinion? Concerns about each other's conduct can be raised at the incidents noticeboard. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for stepping in. I have not written any new content, only translated from the Norwegian page, which has seen extensive reviews by senior WP editors. As such, third opinions have already had a say here. But more is welcome. Enesset (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I have not been edit-warring. Reverting blanking and vandalism (the unjustified removal of large amounts of sourced content) by a new WP:SPA who is only engaged in blanking this article and replacing it with their own far-right POV pushing is mere maintenance. The stable (and original) version before the vandalism by the WP:SPA pushing far-right POV should be reinstated, and the article should be extended confirmed protected to prevent further vandalism from editors with an obvious interest in promoting this far-right website.

As the talk page has also demonstrated, there is no meaningful discussion to be had with a WP:SPA who is only engaged in vandalism and who edit wars to blank the existing article and remove high-quality sourced content, bizarrely claiming that reputable scholarly sources are "obscure" while himself using links to far-right blogs as "sources", instead of seeking consensus for any changes to the article (that is, the original, stable article that he blanked) that he desires (this may also be a case of Wikipedia:Competence is required). --Svantetos (talk) 06:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Svantetos: You have indeed been edit-warring. Being right is not one of the exceptions to the edit-warring policy. Neither is someone else pushing a POV (if that is what they've been doing). Whatever's going on here, it's not vandalism. So, like I said above: If you'd like to try to resolve this content dispute, I recommend WP:3O. If you'd like to pursue conduct sanctions, I recommend WP:ANI. I've intentionally avoided coming to any conclusion as to the merits of either of your reverts. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I have not been involved in any kind of edit-warring. Illegitimate blanking or removal of encyclopedic content without a legitimate reason is defined as vandalism on this project; see Wikipedia:Vandalism. The recommended way to deal with vandalism is to revert the blanking. The editor blanking the article has not offered any kind of legitimate reason for blanking the article by removing large amounts of sourced content from the original article, including every scholarly source, despite being specifically asked to provide a reason for the removal of that content. The reasonable course of action would be to extended confirmed protect the article in a situation where a new editor whose entire edit history consists of edit-warring on this article to blank the original article, with no understanding of the project, and an apparent conflict of interest disrupts the normal editing of the article. --Svantetos (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Svantetos: No, that's not vandalism. This is a content dispute. Enesset has articulated coherent reasons for their edits. You might not think those are good reasons, and you might even be right, but that doesn't make them vandalism. Please seek either dispute resolution for the content matter (WP:DRN is also an option), or user conduct sanctions; but if you continue to edit war when the protection ends, I will have to block you from editing the page. (Note that, as a rule, protection is not to be used to favor one side in a content dispute.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Agree, I think we should try WP:3O. Enesset (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)