Talk:Glenn Diesen

Missing background of context to accusations

The article puts a lot of weight to the propagandist accusations, but it doesn't tell the reader anything concrete about what those are based on. The closest thing is in the quote "his writings are unreliable, the factual basis is doubtful", which doesn't say much. Additionally, the section *Views on Russia and propaganda claims* seems to present the information in the wrong order, with references to what Diesen has actually written in the last paragraph.

I switched to the Norweigan article, and found it much more informative. The intro states that "Han er spesialist på russisk utenrikspolitikk og geopolitikk" which is useful context when following it up with his appearances on RT and the accusations of being a Russian propagandist. The section *Kommentatorvirksomhet* is also much more informative and well-structured compared to the corresponding section on the English article.

I would suggest using the Norweigan article as a basis for a (partial or full) rewrite with a focus on well-structured, concrete, informative descriptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.183.17.6 (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@82.183.17.6 I agree. Also the English article refers to *an opinion* of Patrik Oksanen, a Swedish Russo phobe. 83.252.217.191 (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

COI

The user Gead1979 has replaced the sourced article with a self-serving hagiography. The subject's full name is Glenn Eric Andre Diesen (initials GEAD) and he is born in 1979[1], in other words the user uses the full initials and year of birth of Diesen. --PetterLøkd (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

PetterLøkd: Please, see WP:OUTING. Also note that while editors with COI are discouraged from editing articles directly, they are still welcome to discuss, and their objections need to be considered. MarioGom (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Undue weight

The article covers almost nothing about the subject, and has a severe WP:UNDUE problem regarding the coverage of recent criticism by some. This looks pretty close to an attack page. MarioGom (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

This is wrong: Both his regular activity as an RT commentator (where sources explitly discuss him as having "an important role" for RT) and the mainstream RS coverage and criticism of it span several years; there are sources relating to that from this year, last year and the year before that. Since he is primarily (well) known for activity as a broadcaster (mainly on RT, and for which he has received in-depth coverage), and since his academic career is not exactly stellar (he is cited less than 300 times in Google Scholar), the article is WP:DUE and it would be severely WP:UNDUE to focus on his obscure career as a college professor rather than his high-profile RT career as a (the?) leading peddler of Russian propaganda in Scandinavia according to numerous commentators. An attack page is described as an "unsourced or poorly sourced" article, not a meticulously sourced and accurate article that conveys the perspective of mainstream RS (which, btw., does not include RT). This is no more an attack page than the article on RT's editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan (which states already in the first sentence she that "is a Russian propagandist") and all the other articles related to Russian propaganda. In fact RT people are widely described as involved in Russian propaganda by mainstream RS as well as Wikipedia articles. It's only to be expected that articles documenting the Russian propaganda effort would be attacked by some, but we are not here to please RT and the RT perspective. --PetterLøkd (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is it more important that he is on Russia Today, than his actual political views and contributions? I strongly suggest deemphazising his RT appearances. To me it seems like an attempt of cancel culture, like anyone who is appearing on medium X is somehow thought less of. 188.172.108.126 (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that PetterLøkd seems to put undue weight one outlet, to make this an attack page. PetterLøkd also repeatedly removes content which has been translated from the Norwegian page, which has been reviewed by serior WP editors. It appears that PetterLøkd is in conflict with such editors regarding the Norwegian page. Lizetter (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The sources used by Gead1979

Gead1979 has added claims such as "Diesen is famous" for developing a geoeconomic concept. None of the sources – that include a Kremlin-affiliated think tank – support the assertion. Diesen is cited 299 times in Google Scholar, so it's a very exceptional claim that he is "famous" for developing a new scholarly concept.

Gead1979 has also added the claim that "The attempt to smear Professor Diesen as a "propagandist" has been widely criticized in the Norwegian media as a Norwegian McCarthyism". The sources used to support this claim are fringe sources such as no:Resett (for an article in English, see RationalWiki[2]) and Steigan.no, both "alternative news" websites known for publishing conspiracy theories and factually inaccurate content, that were denied membership in professional journalistic associations and that are regularly criticized by the country's fact-checking site Faktisk.no (owned by the large media companies in Norway including NRK). However, it is true that these fringe sources discuss the fact that Diesen is widely described as purveyor of Russian propaganda by mainstream sources and experts. --PetterLøkd (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Citations

I am puzzled that 300 citations in Google Scholar is being quoted as a low number. Are these citations referencing RT, which the article implies is Diesen's main publishing outlet? Is RT a scholarly publication? (I don't think it is peer reviewed). Anyway, when I looked up "number of citations on Google scholar considered good", I kept finding that 20, or anything in double digits is considered good. But some famous physicists garner thousands. Apparently the number varies from field to field. I also notice that Diesen has written numerous books. Have any of these been reviewed? Who publishes them? RT? Do book reviews count as citations? In any case, some clarification is called for. Mballen (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago has over two thousand google scholar citations. He is on record calling Glenn Diesen's latest book (of seven), "The Ukraine War and the Eurasian World Order, "a terrific book" and a "must read". Mballen (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Why didn't you start this discussion at the bottom ? What are you referring to ? Rsk6400 (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Infobox doesn't fetch Wikidata

I've tried various infobox-types. How get the same amount of wikidata as the no:Glenn Diesen?
– Ponken (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I've seen you have made some large additions here, Lizetter. Would you know how to fix this? Ponken (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I've switched to using a Wikidata template on this page. This picks up some fields, but not all. I believe this is due to the sourcing of the claims. It may be easier just to add the fields to this page rather than relying on Wikidata, which is black-boxy. Lizetter (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

POV edits attempting to turn this article into a hagiography and promote Russian propaganda

Again we've seen POV edits by new accounts attempting to turn this article on a figure who is primarily known to the public for his well-documented role in the Russian propaganda effort (including RT) and writings on the conspiracy theorist blog Steigan[3] into a hagiography and to promote Russian propaganda, edits that were initiated by the account Gead1979, who has so far only been interested in the article on Glenn Eric Andre Diesen (born 1979). Diesen is primarily known in Scandinavia for being widely – in the sense of very extensively, as documented in the article and AfD discussion – criticized in Scandinavian media for promoting Russian propaganda. Note that there is a thread about the ongoing attempts to whitewash Russian propaganda in the article here: [4] The baseless claim that the well-documented coverage of the criticism of his extensive role in Russian propaganda efforts (including RT) is an "attack" was roundly rejected in the AfD discussion. --PetterLøkd (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The comment above is written by a person who has a long history of contempt against senior WP editors, see this: [5] The account is closely associated with Aage Storm Borchgrevink, as discussed by the senior Norwegian editors. It appears that Mr Borchgrevink has a vendetta going against Glenn Diesen. Rather that relying on someone who may have such motives, I have merely translated the start of the Norwegian page, which has been written/reviewed by Norwegian editors. If anyone in this room believes this is wrong, you should edit the Norwegian page first, or discuss such changes on the talk page. It is not in the interest of WP to smear an academic in on the English WP page, it is far better to use the more neutral POV from the Norwegian page, while retaining links to those who have criticized him. Lizetter (talk) 08:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Again we've seen attempts to promote Russian propaganda here from a brand new account that has only made a handful of edits since registering a few months ago, that claims to be based in "Brabant" but that contrary to that is suspiciously/primarily interested in an obscure Norwegian college professor at a third tier institution who is really only known for his role in the Russian propaganda effort on RT – for which he has faced extensive criticism in Norway/Scandinavia. It's quite obvious to me that the attempts to promote Russian propaganda, and the harassment of Borchgrevink, now also on this talk page (see also discussion here; as a senior and long-time Wikipedian myself, with seven years of experience, I didn't know who he was until quite recently) has been coordinated by the pro-Putin conspiracy theorist website Steigan[6], where Diesen is a prolific contributor. I'm inclined to revert such attempts at Russian propaganda here on sight, particularly as the comment above looks very much like it's straight out of a Russian troll factory. --PetterLøkd (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Yet another SPA account – one of many at this point – has appeared here to edit-war and promote Diesen, and to portray him – who is mainly known for his role in Russian propaganda broadcaster RT and pro-Putin conspiracy blog Steigan, as "an expert commentator on Russian matters"[7]. The user "Koetene" has only made three edits, his only other (non-Diesen related) edits are to an article on an obscure town in Saxony-Anhalt[8]. The (also new) account Lizetter who has made the identical edits to Diesen's biography is also interested in obscure towns in Saxony-Anhalt.[9] Due to the ongoing problems with promotion of Russian propaganda by new accounts we need perhaps to ask for an increase in protection level so that only established contributors can edit, in any event we need to watch the article closely. --PetterLøkd (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

PetterLøkd, User:Lizetter and User:Koetene are CU-confirmed and blocked. Pay them no mind. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that doesn't surprise me. --PetterLøkd (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

NPOV

I support this edit because, for example, it removes WP:OR violating material; material about Arne Treholt can go into an article about that person, but can't be put here in this way unless a source combines the information in that way, i.e. mentions it in that context within a source about Glenn Diesen. The article should be neutral, stating facts and not combining facts to insinuate things (see WP:OR), and neither promoting nor downgrading the subject. Also keep WP:BLP in mind. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Bloated style short on objective content

I protest the reversion of my changes. To begin with the first sentence: "Glenn Eric Andre Diesen (born 1979) is a Norwegian academic and political scientist.[1] He is a professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway" If he is a professor it is redundant to say he is also an academic. Obviously he is an academic or he wouldn't be a professor. No editor would let that pass. That he has written many books is more important than that his critics accuse him of being a Russian propagandist,if that is a fact then it should also be mentioned. More important is what his books are about. He has criticized NATO expansion and many people feel strongly about that, apparently. That is also an objective fact. Although as far as I can tell from a perusal of JStor Diesen's books and articles have been respectfully reviewed by scholars. Mballen (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Another flaw in this article, which falls under the rubric of "undue weight", is use of the word "propaganda". If his detractors consider Diesen's books and YouTube discussions as slanted in favor of Russia, then that may be mentioned. However, the word is repeated here five times, without specifying what this so-called propaganda actually consists of. This vagueness, IMO, actually constitutes hostile propaganda, or an attack. And mentioning it once, in so short an article, would be enough. Mballen (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is very clear. Fringe theories have to be marked as such. And WP has to report neutrally what reliable sources say. And Aftenposten is a highly reliable source. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You are conflating "fringe" with "controversial" Opposing NATO expansion is not a fringe theory. It is a controversial theory, which means it is much argued about. A fringe theory is saying that the earth is hollow. Or the moon is made of green cheese.

Academics constantly criticize each other. That is how knowledge advances and why we have peer review, so views can be criticized. Norwegian academics may or may not be unanimous in criticizing Diesen's views. And besides they are not the "majority of academics" (I won't say they are "fringe").

John Mearsheimer, who has 2,775 academic citations, is the recipient of awards, and was chairman of the Political Science Department at the University of Chicago, a world renowned institution, has called Diesen's latest book "brilliant." And as I said, I have not yet found any disrespectful, much less dismissive references toDiesen's papers in Jstor -- though not saying there aren't any, I just haven't come across them. And by the way, over seven books is a respectable amount in someone who is in his 40s. And, considering that he hasn't published that many papers, 300 citations in not negligible.

Many people, some of them eminent and hardly "FRINGE ", are on record as opposing NATO expansion, among them Henry Kissinger and George Kennan, the originator of Cold War Containment Theory, who just before he died said that the founding fathers must be "rolling in their graves" about it. Mballen (talk) 05:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Opposing NATO expansion is no theory, it’s an opinion. That‘s not the cause for the criticism. The problem is with the narratives Diesen is spreading and together with his work for RT. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, what are the narratives? Why be coy and not say so? Wikipedia is supposed to be objective and let readers decide for themselves between differing opinions. After all, if they coincide with Russia's side of the story, it is not surprising that he has a welcome audience there, if that is true. Mballen (talk) Mballen (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV ("neutrally reporting what reliable sources say"; cited from memory) and WP:FRINGE. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Professor Mearsheimer is not a reliable source? Professor Diesen is a controversial figure and that means there are differing opinions about him. He has written seven books and co-written others, published by established (thus reliable) presses and also published in peer reviewed (reliable) journals. That means he is not "FRINGE"

You tell us that Diesen's detractors in Norway claim he writes propaganda (we are not told why). But at least one very eminent US professor gives him the highest praise. Don't readers, especially those who don't read Norwegian, deserve to know what these people are talking about? You seem not to have any answers. By the way, I understand that if you cite foreign authors on English language wikipedia you are supposed to translate what they are saying. Mballen (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

From WP:FRINGE: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. The sources have not been added by me, and I don't know which guideline you are referring to regarding translation. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The "prevailing view" is never static but always changing. If highly reputable scholars endorse them, then Diesen's views on Political Realism are not "FRINGE", though possibly revisionary. End of story. Besides, the WP:FRINGE page is primarily about scientific theories, such as "the earth is hollow", or using bleach as a vaccine, not political science theories, which are a branch of moral philosophy. Perhaps you and your Norwegian friends don't like Professor Diesen's views on political realism and you want to censor views that differ from your own. My understanding is that by definition, if someone has written and co-written over seven books, published by reputable publishers, plus articles in reputable academic journals, and is also a public figure, that is enough for wikipedia. The article deserves a neutral, not a hostile tone. That is a challenge, but it can be accomplished. Mballen (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see how your views conform with our guidelines. I also see that you are repeating yourself. There is no point in continuing this discussion, but you are of course free to seek conflict resolution. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mballen: Why this obsession with the number of his books ? First you insisted on "seven", a number that was obviously wrong. Now you change it to "twelve", but how can you be sure that we didn't forget numbers 13 and 14 ? Rsk6400 (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

My "obsession" is the use of the (dismissive in this context) word "several" - to describe the number books Diesen has published. This is obviously wrong as he has written many more than three, all published by reputable publishers. He is obviously very prolific. I welcome any corrections as to the accurate number. Mballen (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see what is wrong with "several". Rsk6400 (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not a native speaker of English. Mballen (talk)

Mballen (talk) 06:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)