Talk:Håkon Wium Lie/Archive 1

Dispute resolution

Hey, @Jon Harald Søby: and @Permenee:, I have filed a proper dispute resolution on mentioning that Resett is a right-wing magazine. From my perspective you really seem to have an agenda in presenting Resett and Wium Lie in a particular way, that doesn't seem to be in line with public sentiment, how it's discussed in mainstream media or reputable sources. You seem to go entirely by how Wium Lie and Resett want to present themselves, and that doesn't seem to align with wikipedia's guidelines of using 3rd party sources. See WP:SOAP and Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources. Surely the descriptions in encyclopedias and peer-reviewed research papers carries more weight than what the person being discussed says themselves in interviews? And I don't believe being a "senior wikipedia contributor" alone closes down a discussion. I've filed a dispute resolution request to instead bring in a non-partial moderator, because I believe you're both wrong in this case.

However, if I rewrite the paragraph to cover that there is a discrepancy between how Wium Lie presents Resett and how it's generally described in media and other sources, would you accept that? I am thinking that will describe the disagreement, so to speak, but I don't want to spend time on it if you guys are going to remove it over and over.

I also don't agree this is sensationalist. I think believing "right-wing" is libelous must be a language issue. It's a pretty neutral description, and there definitively are more sources describing Resett as far-right. Elmats (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

First, I don't think Wium Lie has said anything about Resett being left or right; he's only said he supported the newspaper to give Bjørn Ihler and Helge Lurås a platform. Still, my main objection to your editing is that you are using a bio page to label the bias of newspaper. Adding a discussion on the perceived bias would only further remove the page from what a bio page should be. So, no, your proposed solution isn't a solution. Permenee (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Right-wing activism dispute resolution

Hey @Permenee:, I think you have misunderstood how the dispute resolution process went. It was reaped, presumably because no-one wanted to pick up the role of moderator. I believe we can resolve this without sniping and reverting edits to the end of time, so I'll try instead to go through another WP dispute resolution process. In the meanwhile I'll revert it to the original. Elmats (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Right wing activism

Why remove and rewrite the parts on Lie's right-wing activism? It is public and transparent and I have not seen indications he is trying to keep this secret? Not that it would make a difference, but it seems like brigading at this point. If engagement in Piratpartiet is notable enough for the first paragraph, then changing party and running for parliament for Alliansen is equally or more notable. And founding and co-ownership in Resett is probably his most notable engagement overall. This is all public political engagement and I don't understand the reasoning to call it a smear campaign to document it. --Elmats (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The use of the term "right-wing" is incorrect, as documented by the references you repeatedly remove. The term is libelous when used incorrectly and must be removed. Also, your editing is sensationalism and creates a misleading impression of a living person. Permenee (talk) 06:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I haven't removed any references to whether Resett is right-wing or not. It's also not incorrect, but perhaps keeping controversial and leaving out right-wing or replacing right-wing with "islam-critical" or a similar phrasing would be more neutral. I don't see your motivation for reverting this all the time? I assume Lie himself would not object to his public political engagement being documented, and it's very relevant encyclopedic information given it's all public record. Elmats (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll try rewriting it based on what's in the SNL Elmats (talk) 06:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

You seem to object to the word "right-wing" which is not as controversial as you seem to think. It covers everything from centre-right, according to Wikipedia's own page. Elmats (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Elmats:@Permenee: Howdy hello! Both of you need to stop reverting this page immediately and talk it out here, or you're both gonna get blocked for edit warring. In terms of the issue, I see that there is a disagreement over whether or not the news agency Lie founded was right-wing. What do the sources attached say? I can't read Norweigen, and so can few other editors here, so a translation wouldn't go amiss. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The reference I added to it now regarding "right-wing" is from Norway's main and only paper encyclopedia. The translation of the relevant part from Google Translate is "Resett presents itself as a politically independent online newspaper, but is rooted in the right-hand side of the political landscape." and I believe that is a correct translation. I think the tussle is about whether calling something "right-wing" is potentially libelous and I believe not. Elmats (talk) 06:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The Norwegian wikipedia page on Resett does not label Resett as left or right. Articles and comments cover a wide spectrum, including the left. One of the founders Bjørn Ihler is clearly on the left, and Wium Lie clearly expressed that his support for Resett was due to giving Bjørn a platform. On a biography page, this fact is must be more relevant that labelling provided by other, more peripheral, sources. However, references to the newspaper article where Wium Lie expresses this is repeatedly removed. Permenee (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The SNL (The Norwegian Encyclopedia) is not a peripheral source. And Wium Lie's personal stated intention with supporting the newspaper doesn't invalidate what the encyclopedia say about it. Elmats (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

SNL is notable, but more still more peripheral than the sources Elmats removed. And why not use Wikipedia's article instead? It is more recent, has in-depth information, and a wider discussion. Also the term SNL uses -- "anchored on the political right side of the landscape" -- is very mild compared to the "controversial right-wing" term proposed by Elmats. The heading Elmats chose for this discussion "Right wing activism" is telling of what Elmats is trying to express. However, reliable sources tell a very different story about Wium Lie's motivation for supporting Resett. If anything, his support was left-wing activism. These sources must be used to give a NPOV. Permenee (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm unsure why you seem to think right-wing or "right-wing activism" is so loaded. On wikipedia's own list of right-wing parties, parties like the Conservative party and the Christian Democratic Party (KRF) are listed, extremely mainstream parties in Norway. And surely founding a newspaper and running for parliament can be called activism? And finally, you now removed the references I added to the controversies around Resett, among others that Google revoked their use of adSense advertising. The article as it is now is grossly misleading. You also seem to work very hard to present both Wium Lie and Resett in very specific way that is not in line with their general mainstream profile. Are you personally affiliated with either? Elmats (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I tried to add in the details on Resett while keeping your edits and sources. Hope this is OK. Elmats (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@@CaptainEek: I replaced sources on "controversial" and "right-wing" with English language sources Elmats (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@@CaptainEek: It's still hugely problematic to us the terms "controversial Norwegian right-wing" on a bio page. Sure, any newspaper who expresses opinions can be labelled "controversial". And you will easily find people who classify newspapers politically. For example, you can find references that say NYT is "liberal" or "left-wing" or "controversial". Still, you do not write "co-founder of controversial left-wing New York Times" on the biography of Henry Jarvis Raymond. Discussion of bias should appear in the Wikipedia page of the newspaper itself (like it does on the The New York Times page), and not on bio pages of co-founders. This seems to be common practice on English Wikipedia, and I ask that this practice continues. If the words "controversial" and "right-wing" are removed, I think the article is fine. Permenee (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Permenee, if you look at the wikipedia pages of the cofounders of Breitbart, Andrew Breitbart and Steve Bannon, you will see that they mention the right-wing nature of Breitbart in the same way as I did for Resett here. Resett is quite comparable to Breitbart, as you can see if you read the publication from Reuters, for example. So you're not correct about this not being the current practice. Perhaps including "controversial" is a lot of extra information, but given Resett doesn't have a page on English wikipedia I think it's correct to include this context. It's important for the nature of understanding what Wium Lie is involved with. The only thing I'm concerned about is if "right-wing" should be "far-right" as that's the terminology in the sources. I find "controversial right-wing" to be more informative, however, given some of the controversy is around advertising etc. and not right-wing specific. Elmats (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

True, Andrew Breitbart's page uses the term "right-wing". But the context is very different: "conservative publisher, writer and commentator ... a news and right-wing opinion website", compared to "controversial ... right-wing" which you suggest on this bio page. Further, the lack of an English wikipedia page on Resett is not a good excuse for your choice of words -- there's a well-developed Norwegian page which can be translated. It does not use the terms Elmats suggests, though. Finally, Resett is quite different from Breitbart. Much of the content on Resett is from NTB, a mostly neutral source of news in Norway. Resett was founded by a PoC and many of the writers have an immigrant background, making it the most diverse editorial board of any Norwegian newspaper (besides Utrop). The anti-war sentiments often expressed in Resett are typically from left-wing writers. The main reason why Resett now is being campaigned against is that they allow any reader to comment, as long as the comments are within Norwegian law. Some of the comments are controversial, perhaps even hateful. (But this is the case for all newspapers which allow user comments.) So, if you want to pair "controversial" with another term, "free-speech" would be a better choice. Still, I don't think it belongs on a bio page. Permenee (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

It appears to me that your main argument against noting that Resett is a controversial right-wing magazine is your own reasoning around what constitutes right-wing, rather than referring to how it's described in 3rd party sources. I've put forward multiple reputable sources documenting it (an encyclopedia, a peer-reviewed academic journal and a report from Reuters). I don't see you bringing this any further forward. A lot of news sites (at least 170 according to NTB) use the NTB news feed to backfill their own content, it's extremely common and doesn't change the nature of their own editorial profile. Even their own chief editor say they are supposed to be an alternative to the left and liberal perspective. I believe the way it's currently phrased should remain. I also feel the qualifications of why he chose to get involved with both Resett and Alliansen balances the article. Elmats (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

You should argue this case on the Resett page, not on a bio page. The term "controversial Norwegian right-wing" is not fitting for a bio page unless you have reliable references that this person is actually right-wing activist. You have not provided any such referecens. On the contraray, the person stated -- when resett was -- formed, that he did so to give a platform to an Utøya survivor and a researcher who warned against bombing Libya. These sources are now present, even after you deleted them multiple times. It seems your agenda is simply to smear. Permenee (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Permenee, I don't understand why it's so important for you to tone down the right-wing engagement. For argument's sake, he has kept on being a co-owner after Ihler quit and also distanced himself from the magazine because of what he described as a monotonous focus on islam and immigration. You must for sure know this, so you are clearly cherry picking facts to create a certain perspective. I have not removed any sources unless it was a full rollback of your edits of my edits, but I've kept all the nuancing information like Lie's own reasoning for the sake of balance. Stop removing the information just because it doesn't paint the picture you want. English Wikipedia isn't a marketing platform for Resett or Lie. Elmats (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Elmats and Permenee: I don't know why this discussion needs to be done in parallel in both the Norwegian Bokmål and the English Wikipedia, but still. User:Trygve W Nodeland on the Norwegian Bokmål has – as you've probably seen – restructured the article there to be more in line with the styleguide for how biographies should be set up. I would suggest you work together to restructure this article in the same way. Wium Lie's involvement with founding Resett and his candidature for Alliansen are notable enough to be mentioned, but I really think emphasizing those cases in the lead of the article is wrong because of both WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT. It is fine to mention those in the body of the article, but not in the lead.

Also as a note to the discussion on right-wing: As far as I understand, Resett wasn't meant to be a right-wing newspaper at the foundation, but rather as an alternative to the establised media. Wium Lie supported Resett – according to the sources at least – because of Lurås's opposition to the EEA and various NATO involvements, and because of Bjørn Ihler's involvement with the project. Ihler, a survivor of the Utøya massacre, and therefore presumably not at all on the right wing, quit Resett soon after it was launched because he didn't like the direction it was going in (amongst other things), further indicating that Resett wasn't necessarily meant to be right-wing at all when Wium Lie became involved. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. I've edited the article as per your suggestions. Permenee (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Wium Lie is still a major owner of Resett long after Ihler distanced himself from the magazine in public. I belive there's balance in the article by providing the context Wium Lie himself provides, but third party sources about the nature of the magazine is also necessary for a reader to understand the full context here. Presenting Resett in this article with no context, like it's a social-democratic effort, is disregarding most npov third party sources and gives an objectively wrong impression. I have added back the context but fine with keeping it in the political part. Elmats (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Permenee, at this point you are making changes that are only intended to keep sourced, relevant information off Wikipedia. That alone should make you stop and think. Elmats (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Elmats, please read the guidance above, esp. the part about "right-wing". I've editied out "right-wing" -- "controversial" remains, in the hope of ending an edit war. Permenee (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree with the reasoning of the person above. I'd rather this go to dispute resolution. I replaced the information you removed. Elmats (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jon Harald Søby: It seems that more guidance is needed.

I filed a dispute resolution request: [1] Elmats (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Continued disagreement

@Elmats:@Permenee: I see your disagreement over what to include in this article has continued, and that you have taken to edit warring to solve the issue. So lets instead try discussing the issue here. Personally, I think neither of your versions are appropriate. From what I've seen, it seemed that Lie invested in Resset as part of his belief in free speech, but that he did not invest in it because it was right-wing. Nor does it seem that it was a right-wing paper when it was started and when Lie invested in it. Thus I invite you folks to write a more nuanced version that captures the complexity of the situation, and not just makes a conclusion. The new writing ought be work-shopped here on the talk page until consensus is reached and then it is inserted into the article. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

We can give that a shot. You seem objective, @CaptainEek:, are you happy to provide 3rd party guidance and moderation? Elmats (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to work with CaptainEek this. For me, it's important that the BLP is not used as a proxy page for something else, and that it doesn't make sensationalist claims in breech of BLP policies. As such, I would like to know why CaptainEek thinks my proposed sentence is inappropriate: "In 2017, he was an initial investor in the Norwegian online newspaper Resett stating it was meaningful to help provide a platform for Helge Lurås, a critic of NATO campaigns in Afghanistan and Libya, and Bjørn Ihler, a survivor of the Utøya massacre." Permenee (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Then I'm happy to work with you folks. Its quite late where I am, so I will write up my response to your question in the morning Permenee. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)