Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
:::::Given the obvious antisemitic tropes expressed by this editor, not to mention the rejection of one of our core principles, there's really no point in responding to them further, especially considering that they've made zero contributions to improve the encyclopedia, and have only edited to make the comments here, and in his userspace. [[WP:DFFT]]. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 04:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC) |
:::::Given the obvious antisemitic tropes expressed by this editor, not to mention the rejection of one of our core principles, there's really no point in responding to them further, especially considering that they've made zero contributions to improve the encyclopedia, and have only edited to make the comments here, and in his userspace. [[WP:DFFT]]. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 04:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC) |
||
{{ping|Jim Meadows}} your bio mentions you used to be on wikipedia but you may not have noticed: wikipedia is not a place where we present the objective truth, rather, our aim is to present things expressed in mainstream sources as defined by a current-year-western-centric worldview. You may find the policies unfair, however, we do not have a good practical alternative that allows to reach consensus. My recommendation to everyone is that they stay away from controversial articles where they have strong feelings running against the grain, even when the article seems to be outrageously slanted. --[[User:Nanite|Nanite]] ([[User talk:Nanite|talk]]) 06:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC) |
{{ping|Jim Meadows}} your bio mentions you used to be on wikipedia but you may not have noticed: wikipedia is not a place where we present the objective truth, rather, our aim is to present things expressed in mainstream sources as defined by a current-year-western-centric worldview. You may find the policies unfair, however, we do not have a good practical alternative that allows to reach consensus. My recommendation to everyone is that they stay away from controversial articles where they have strong feelings running against the grain, even when the article seems to be outrageously slanted. --[[User:Nanite|Nanite]] ([[User talk:Nanite|talk]]) 06:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC) |
||
:Bullshit. Antisemitic garbage and Fascist and neo-Nazi propaganda has no place on Wikipedia, and will be deleted wherever it's found. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 06:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:54, 6 February 2018
![]() | The Daily Stormer has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 2, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer encourages Internet trolling by its "Troll Army"? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Unexplained reversion
Having been reverted without explanation by Anarcho-authoritarian, I'm wondering why. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, your edit came amidst a sea of IP vandalism and I read it wrong, as if you had removed the abbreviation Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
dailystormer.ws
New domain. 66.87.30.196 (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Needs a reliable source (magazine, newspaper, news website, journal, book). Citing the new URL as the source for the new URL is not permitted.- MrX 20:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Source from Anglins Gab[1]. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Do we know that he is actually in control of that profile? If yes, then perhaps we should wait a day or two until the site is booted by Samoa and moves on to another TLD.- MrX 21:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- The account is verified by Gab, and is the account listed in the external links section. The other site listed in the external links is the WordPress of Aglin which links to the account in multiple posts.[2] The third link in the external sources, the onion link, currently mentions the dot WS address too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Do we know that he is actually in control of that profile? If yes, then perhaps we should wait a day or two until the site is booted by Samoa and moves on to another TLD.- MrX 21:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Source from Anglins Gab[1]. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Domain has been shut down https://gab.ai/AndrewAnglin/posts/14321423 2601:8C:4102:1210:C582:3DBA:A660:1211 (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Needed trimming and Wikilinks after article fork
Andrew Anglin now has an independent article after an article fork, due to items relating to him being unrelated to the main website. The portions related to him are needed to be trimmed significantly and transferred to the main article, but I don't have permission to edit it. Would someone care to edit it in? ArticleLays (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- I want to point out, with the fork, that it's important Andrew Anglin has some notability independent of his website The Daily Stormer. Otherwise we'll probably see a lot of duplicated content and little new information on Anglin's article. --Nanite (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Since ArticleLays has been blocked for sockpuppetry I have reverted the article to a redirect here, per WP:BE (and WP:G5). There may or may not be enough to justify a separate article, but PerfectlyIrrational's many disruptive and deceptive attempts at hagiography are not the right way to get there. Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
dailystormer.hk
New domain. 73.112.79.89 (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- Reliable source?- MrX 23:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Done Next please provide a citation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- @MrX: You reverted my edit saying
Please only use reliable sources, not dark web links.
, but as per WP:ABOUTSELF we can use the Daily Stormer to make claims about itself. Would you prefer to use the VK or Hatreon source? Anglin has not yet updated his Gab. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)- How about a newspaper, magazine, journal, book, or news website? We don't know need to update this in real time every time the website gets booted off a TLD. Using various questionable websites as a source for this is problematic. Perhaps this should be raised at WP:ELN to get some outside input?- MrX 00:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Is your issue with the sourcing or the inclusion of the link? If it is the sourcing then WP:RSN might be more appropriate. If it is the inclusion of the links I agree that we could raise it at WP:ELN. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- My issue is with sourcing to support that that is the URL for the subject website as opposed to a mirror site, or a fake. I think whatever URL we list as official should be backed by a reliable source. Perhaps it is a better question for WP:RSN.- MrX 12:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Is your issue with the sourcing or the inclusion of the link? If it is the sourcing then WP:RSN might be more appropriate. If it is the inclusion of the links I agree that we could raise it at WP:ELN. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- How about a newspaper, magazine, journal, book, or news website? We don't know need to update this in real time every time the website gets booted off a TLD. Using various questionable websites as a source for this is problematic. Perhaps this should be raised at WP:ELN to get some outside input?- MrX 00:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- @MrX: You reverted my edit saying
@MrX: What is your view regarding the two links currently in the external links section? Onion and Anglins Gab. If you doubt these then we should remove them from the external links section. However if you don't doubt these then I will ask at RSN about using them as a source for claiming new domains. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- That they are not reliable sources. They may be OK as external links (I haven't clicked on them and I'm not going to). The issue at hand is what is a reliable source for the non-onion domain for the website. My contention is that should come from a reliable source. - MrX 17:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- An discussion has been started at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Self-published source claiming domain on "The Daily Stormer". --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
@Rockypedia and TorontonianOnlines: This discussion has taken place regarding the sourcing of the domain. I am waiting for a consensus at RSN. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, did not see that. Glad that the link got restored and cited. Cheers! TorontonianOnlines (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Anglins Wordpress
I removed the link to Anglins blog that has not been updated in months, to reduce links as per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. This edit was reverted by MrX. Should we include this, considering we have a link to the article topic via Onion as well as Anglins Gab page? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, I self-reverted that part of my revert. However, we should not include an official links to the website until they can be verified in a reliable source.- MrX 00:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
dailystormer.red
New domain. 2601:8C:4102:1210:AC83:B3DD:90CD:DCED (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Article Wording
Forgive me for not knowing how to format discussion posts, but "ramming homicide victim"? Really? Let's not jump to conclusions, the driver of the Challenger hasn't even been convicted of a crime yet. Until someone's proven his motivation, this language can only be taken to be biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:AFDF:6800:3833:D883:4530:FE3A (talk) 06:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
- IP, please see this dictionary entry. [3] "Homicide" is often confused with murder but that is just one type of homicide. Any unnatural death caused by one person against another. Even if, as some believe, he was an uninvolved person who sped up because he felt in danger amidst the rally, that is still homicide. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Dailystormer.name
The website has transitioned into www.dailystormer.name now. The article needs to be updated. --Sldghmmrsldg (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- It will be once there is a reliable source to support that there is a new domain.- MrX 🖋 13:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- @MrX: Thanks for your response, but the current source that is being used in the infobox (i.e. this) doesn't state that the site is located at dailystormer.top, it claims otherwise, i.e. that the site is located at dailystormer.name, so you have right there a disconnect in the article. --Sldghmmrsldg (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
List of All the Various Daily Stormer Domain Names
I'm very surprised that none of the controversy centered on The Daily Stormer is included in this article. I think that at the very least there should be a list of the various domain names that have been used, and also some sort of explanation as to why they are being taken down.Jim Meadows (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Please see The Daily Stormer#Site hosting issues after the 2017 Unite the Right rally, or were you looking for something else? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes it was. Thank you, I guess. Not to be rude or anything but I scanned the article looking for the word "Censorship" as I figured it would be figured prominently in the title, but it was not and is not now. That's weird. The single-biggest case of internet censorship in the history of the internet because all the "reliable sources" are unanimous in their agreement that Anglin's political speech is so reprehensible that it should not be allowed in the internet, anywhere, and the entirety of the Wikipedia Editing Staff seems to agree, I would think that at the very least the topic would be named without censorship, even if the contents of the site, and the work of it's author are almost completely erased. Anglin is an author, and a publisher, and the Daily Stormer is his Novel, his Newspaper and his Diary. He has as much right to free speech as anyone and yet all of humanity is united on the idea that he should not be allowed to speak. What other word for this is there besides "censorship". "Issues" are what I have when my ISP takes my money and then steals my domain. When every single web hosting services and registrar on the planet is allowed to steal your domain name, that's called censorship, of the highest possible order save imprisoning Anglin, and charging him with a crime.Jim Meadows (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- You can certainly write something in the article about censorship if you can locate some reliable sources that have discussed it, otherwise it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself with our core policies.- MrX 🖋 12:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- I guess I challenge the whole notion of "reliable sources" in this case. Given the massively disproportionate representation of Jews in the mass media, and the fact that Anglin is patently anti-semitic, I think we are now in an edge condition where all the "reliable sources" are so biased that they can no longer be considered reliable for this topic. Two plus two equals four no matter how many reliable sources say it's 3, or 5, or that the answer is too offensive to publish, even if it's true. Can we use non-US, and/or non-English sources? Russia Today, or Al Jazeera? At this point, I'm simply asking for the word "censorship" to be used prominently in the section about Anglin, because that's what it is, and 2 + 2 equals 4. You don't need an outside source to see the truth of it, any more than you need a math book to prove basic arithmetic. Too often I see this requirement to use reliable sources as a means by which to allow a substandard, biased and (in this case) heavily censored article to remain as it is. Isn't there also some other policy that allows editors to "break rules" in order to serve the best interest of the article? Are YOU happy with this article in it's current condition, without even a single mention of the word "censor" in the entirety of this article? I think Senior Editors need to step up and do what's right and stop passively allowing these rules to prevent any substantive mention of any of the controversies involved in this subject matter. Anglin has had something on the order of 20 domain different names, from numerous different registrars, all of them seized and shut-down. How does that happen without some form of CENSORSHIP? I get the feeling if I find a source that discusses this subject there will be all sorts of Editors crawl out of the woodwork to shoot it down as "not reliable". Which is, in my opinion, another form of censorship. At the end of the process, this Article is a living testimony to Wikipedia's failure to live up to it's own policies, and every day this continues it is a statement of the lack of integrity of the people that have participated in it.Jim Meadows (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Given the obvious antisemitic tropes expressed by this editor, not to mention the rejection of one of our core principles, there's really no point in responding to them further, especially considering that they've made zero contributions to improve the encyclopedia, and have only edited to make the comments here, and in his userspace. WP:DFFT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- I guess I challenge the whole notion of "reliable sources" in this case. Given the massively disproportionate representation of Jews in the mass media, and the fact that Anglin is patently anti-semitic, I think we are now in an edge condition where all the "reliable sources" are so biased that they can no longer be considered reliable for this topic. Two plus two equals four no matter how many reliable sources say it's 3, or 5, or that the answer is too offensive to publish, even if it's true. Can we use non-US, and/or non-English sources? Russia Today, or Al Jazeera? At this point, I'm simply asking for the word "censorship" to be used prominently in the section about Anglin, because that's what it is, and 2 + 2 equals 4. You don't need an outside source to see the truth of it, any more than you need a math book to prove basic arithmetic. Too often I see this requirement to use reliable sources as a means by which to allow a substandard, biased and (in this case) heavily censored article to remain as it is. Isn't there also some other policy that allows editors to "break rules" in order to serve the best interest of the article? Are YOU happy with this article in it's current condition, without even a single mention of the word "censor" in the entirety of this article? I think Senior Editors need to step up and do what's right and stop passively allowing these rules to prevent any substantive mention of any of the controversies involved in this subject matter. Anglin has had something on the order of 20 domain different names, from numerous different registrars, all of them seized and shut-down. How does that happen without some form of CENSORSHIP? I get the feeling if I find a source that discusses this subject there will be all sorts of Editors crawl out of the woodwork to shoot it down as "not reliable". Which is, in my opinion, another form of censorship. At the end of the process, this Article is a living testimony to Wikipedia's failure to live up to it's own policies, and every day this continues it is a statement of the lack of integrity of the people that have participated in it.Jim Meadows (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- You can certainly write something in the article about censorship if you can locate some reliable sources that have discussed it, otherwise it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself with our core policies.- MrX 🖋 12:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Yes it was. Thank you, I guess. Not to be rude or anything but I scanned the article looking for the word "Censorship" as I figured it would be figured prominently in the title, but it was not and is not now. That's weird. The single-biggest case of internet censorship in the history of the internet because all the "reliable sources" are unanimous in their agreement that Anglin's political speech is so reprehensible that it should not be allowed in the internet, anywhere, and the entirety of the Wikipedia Editing Staff seems to agree, I would think that at the very least the topic would be named without censorship, even if the contents of the site, and the work of it's author are almost completely erased. Anglin is an author, and a publisher, and the Daily Stormer is his Novel, his Newspaper and his Diary. He has as much right to free speech as anyone and yet all of humanity is united on the idea that he should not be allowed to speak. What other word for this is there besides "censorship". "Issues" are what I have when my ISP takes my money and then steals my domain. When every single web hosting services and registrar on the planet is allowed to steal your domain name, that's called censorship, of the highest possible order save imprisoning Anglin, and charging him with a crime.Jim Meadows (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jim Meadows: your bio mentions you used to be on wikipedia but you may not have noticed: wikipedia is not a place where we present the objective truth, rather, our aim is to present things expressed in mainstream sources as defined by a current-year-western-centric worldview. You may find the policies unfair, however, we do not have a good practical alternative that allows to reach consensus. My recommendation to everyone is that they stay away from controversial articles where they have strong feelings running against the grain, even when the article seems to be outrageously slanted. --Nanite (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Bullshit. Antisemitic garbage and Fascist and neo-Nazi propaganda has no place on Wikipedia, and will be deleted wherever it's found. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)