Talk:The Daily Stormer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

External links section

I guess the page has to include a section specifically linking to the Stormer, right? —Cesar Tort 16:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Puedes poner el enlace al sitio en la sección de enlaces externales. Ya no lo he puesto porque el enlace ya esta en la pagina, en el infobox. '''tAD''' (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record: I moved tAD's comment in Spanish from my talk page here (and removed it there). —Cesar Tort 21:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Notability and primary sources

While this blog is mentioned a few times by the ADL, SPLC and such, that doesn't necessarily establish notability. The article also uses the blog itself as a source, which is against editorial standards requiring secondary and tertiary sources, e.g. Anglin's thoughts on this article. Laval (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

CNN and BBC among others have reported on its campaigns of malicious communication. The Diplomatic Courier has mentioned it due to Fredrick Brennan writing in it. The Jewish Chronicle have also covered it. OK, the articles on this article can go. '''tAD''' (talk) 07:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact that notorious hate groups like ADL and SPLC are considered reliable sources in Wikipedia is one of the reasons I quit editing the wiki. --Cesar Tort 15:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Daily Stormer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 02:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of September 28, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

• NOTE: Please respond, below this review, and not interspersed throughout, thank you!
• Please expand lede sect to four (4) paragraphs, fully summarizing article to function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents, per WP:LEAD. But first add Reception or Commentary or Analysis sect, as mentioned, below.

2. Verifiable?: Duly cited throughout, no issues here.

3. Broad in coverage?: MISSING: Please add Reception or Commentary or Analysis sect. Need sect addition to place the topic within context of how it is perceived among a preponderance of secondary sources.

4. Neutral point of view?: MISSING: Without a sect full of analysis from secondary sources, as recommended, above, article is not neutral and lacks description of overall perception of publication from overall secondary sources.

5. Stable? I see several edits recently that seem problematic by new users and IPs. Addition of primary source in edit summary, Removed irrelevant and polarizing information, etc. Please explain if attempts have been made to discuss with these users. Is semi-protection necessary? Is this an issue for possible further instability?

6. Images?:

• File:JaredTaylor.JPG = problem here. Dead link. This image needs to either be deleted or have commons:Commons:OTRS confirmation.
• File:Weevilicious.jpg = and here we have a good example of what is best, OTRS confirmation. Good job on this one.
• File:Daily Stormer.png = MISSING: field on Author or copyright holder. Strongly recommend somewhere on that template to have a several-point-argumentation for why this image is needed and to have a very detailed fair use rationale. Like a listed numbered argument in several points of why it's needed. Helps make the fair use rationale much stronger and lasting over time that way.

NOTE: Please respond, below this review, and not interspersed throughout, thank you!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Based on the length of this article, four paragraphs in the lead section would be way too long, per WP:LEAD. sst^flyer 05:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you're right. But my suggestion takes into account my strong recommendation for another sect on reflection of the subject matter and analysis from secondary sources. At that point, that new info should be added to the lede. Otherwise, okay. :) — Cirt (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Cirt: Does the "content" section not count as a reception/analysis section? Within, we see analysis of the website's formula, and how it is regarded by anti-racists and other white nationalist authors. That is the breadth of opinions which you have asked for. '''tAD''' (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Jared Taylor: Although it is a dead link, the image is still visible on the side of the link. However, as he is merely someone who criticised the website, rather than a contributor, we can do without this image '''tAD''' (talk) 09:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Stability: The page attracts occasional hit-and-run vandalism, such as from white nationalist dissenters who don't like Anglin's take on women or his alleged interracial activities. There is not as far as I can see a serious dispute on content, sourcing or other. The brevity of initial semi-protection will not diffuse these dispersed vandalisms, nor is a permanent semi-protection acceptable when they are so dispersed '''tAD''' (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm wondering how has the organization been commented on by published books, the media, The Washington Post, The New York Times, perhaps the Southern Poverty Law Center has discussed it and been quoted in secondary sources, maybe some academic journal articles, that sort of thing. Looking for a wider context of commentary here than just by others within same field. — Cirt (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

1. The_National_(Scotland)#Reception
2. Antara_(news_agency)#Public_response_and_opinion
3. WSJ.#Critical_review

Here are some good examples of what I was thinking about as far as context from secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

In reference #7, there is the dissenting opinions as quoted in the LA Times, which I believe is one of the leading American newspapers. Nonetheless, I can look for more '''tAD''' (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it shouldn't be too hard, I was able to find a lot lot more online in good WP:RS secondary sources that discuss this subject. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Update: I've taken the liberty myself to fix all issues at image File:2008 Jared Taylor.jpg = so you can add that back into the article if you like. Any updates on adding a new section for Reception with secondary sources, please? — Cirt (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Cirt: I have the reception alongside the content, because The Daily Stormer is by definition an unremarkable media organ where the content only becomes notable through external analysis. In that section, there is the analysis and reception from anti-racist/ethnic special interest bodies (SPLC, ADL, Jewish Chronicle). There is also reception both positive and negative, from more established white nationalist organizations. When it comes to the Trump endorsement (another thing which is unremarkable without external analysis), there is reception from a black conservative, an author blaming changes in anti-racist academia, and another who puts the blame on Trump himself. There is a suitable balance between what the Stormer is saying of itself, and the reaction from a spectrum of other organizations and writers giving their views about the website '''tAD''' (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You make some very good points. I'll re-read it over again one more time and get back to you, here. — Cirt (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've re-read it over again. Personally I think it'd be best to break out Reception info into its own sect. But to each their own I guess. Only one thing left remains, and that would be to add a new paragraph to the WP:LEAD sec with summary of the secondary source commentary strewn throughout the article into one summary paragraph. Then, after that's done, should be good to go! Keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Daily_Stormer.png

Came here for this, saw was in GA review (so am nesting it; if think should be in parent go ahead and mv there). I think a solution is to crop then SVG the typography, rm Anglin's name from image, and to not have the Happy Merchant[1] in corner. Ya' know, to have only actual logo and not entire stylistic banner used for layout. If the logo is cleaned up it doesn't even need to be fair use as typefaces are not eligible for copyright due to not meeting threshold of originality, and the Reichsadler or other historic nazi symbolism are public domain (example: File:Reichsadler der Deutsches Reich (1933–1945).svg). -- dsprc ^[talk] 20:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with this recommendation from Dsprc, will give GA Nominator The Almightey Drill a couple more days to carry this out. And to improve the lede intro sect with some secondary sourced Commmentary from the article's body text as recommended earlier, above. — Cirt (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not skilled in any aspect in graphics, so I would not know how to remove Anglin's name while keeping the gradient in the background. It is not possible to simply crop, as the flicks of the longer letters go down to the same level as Anglin's name '''tAD''' (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@The Almightey Drill: Neither am I. :) Can try and take a stab myself (will follow up on your talk), but am unable to do SVG conversion with this machine. Luckily, the file is a PNG and not JPEG so less artifacts to get in the way. I noticed Daily Stormer are holding a new logo contest so it may not be worth the trouble. I can maybe contact Stormer/Anglin to try and get a non-gradient version etc. -- dsprc ^[talk] 19:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, but be safe with your communications. Clearly, I don't know Anglin myself and I shouldn't make assumptions about one individual, but some people of his ideological persuasions are suspicious of Wikipedia '''tAD''' (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Note taken. ;) -- dsprc ^[talk] 19:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Passed as GA

I've looked it over and re-read the article again and I see that the commentary type info is actually integrated into the lede intro sect quite nicely. The image issue is fine for GA for now and can be worked out later with Dsprc on the article's talk page. Good job. — Cirt (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected

I've semi-protected the page for 12 hours following recent blanking - given that this is a GA. To the IP editor who is removing content; this is a Good Article which is judged to be balanced and neutral by objective reviewers. If you have content to add then take a quick read of our reliable sources guide to understand what material you need to present & then give it a go. However the approach you are taking is not acceptable or helpful. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Daily Stormer is satirical

Wow, Wikipedia. I'm amazed that no one on here has realized that Daily Stormer is 100% satirical, in the vein of 4chan. yonnie (talk) 06:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

As always, have you a source? The word on 4chan is that it is a fail, because it uses their M.O. Of satire, but while trying to push a "serious" point of view '''tAD''' (talk) 07:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Anglin has commented on this many times. For example , here: http://www.dailystormer.com/its-important-to-stay-funny/. He believes the ideas behind what he is saying, the humor is a tactic meant to break down any reservations about his extreme ideas that normal people may have, to get them on board. It is wrong to call Daily Stormer a satire of white nationalism or Nazism. If it was just a joking take on the far right, why would he have identified himself publicly while writing what he does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cultofmithras (talk • contribs) 03:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Far-right or Neo-Nazism

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is clearly for the current 'Neo-nazi and white supremacist' designation, both as more specific than just "far-right", and as described by reliable sources. --GRuban (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The editor of the Daily Stormer has cited his publication as being 'Far-right', which is in contrast to the current 'Neo-nazi and white supremacist' designation in the lead paragraph. Given that both the ideologies of Neo-nazism and White supremacism typically fall under the Far-right political umbrella alongside fascism, should the paragraph read "The Daily Stormer is a far-right news and commentary website."?

I am in favour of altering it to Far-right due to the fact that:

• It is well known in the article that much of the content is derogatory towards U.S minorities (esp. Jews and African-Americans) which would earn itself both the Neo-nazi and white supremacist designation
  
• Both Neo-Nazism and the belief in white supremacy are well established Far-right ideologies
  
• In terms of WP:NPOV, 'Far-right' sounds more balanced and even-sided
• The sites author's opinion should be taken into account to maintain WP:DUE. Even the reliable sources cited above in point 2 attest to the current designations of 'Neo-Nazi' and 'White supremacy' as being Far-right.

It's important to note that many of the secondary sources used to define this article will have an inherent bias due to not being objective Encyclopedia's like Wikipedia, but rather blogs, news sites etc. --Ritsaiph (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Far-right is extremely broad while the National Socialism and white supremacist descriptors are more focused. For example, Anarcho-capitalism is often categorised as "far-right" and is in most respects the antithesis of views and positions expressed by National Socialists or supremacists. For a broad but descriptive categorisation, White Nationalism seems more targeted while encompassing but it may not be entirely accurate here nor appropriate (plus the linked article isn't as good ). Our sources need not be objective or unbiased but our presentation of their views must be (within reason). Neo-Nazi is an objective term, just as Marxist, Federalist, Objectivist, Pacifist, Neo-Luddite, Neoliberal or Zionist are. It more narrowly describes the editorial focus, content, political and ideological platform of this publication; which causes me to support inclusion of language describing Socialist and supremacist aspects. Besides, that is what our sources say; they have the voice, not us; if they disagree with one another, our job is to square them. (as DUE and NPV suggest) -- dsprc ^[talk] 21:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It's described as being neo-Nazi because that's how reliable secondary sources describe it. When secondary sources are available, and they agree, then it matters a lot less how the site's editor describes it, as that's a primary source. Besides this, I find it interesting that you would say "news sites" are not objective, but in the same proposal you think the site's editor would be more objective. I can understand why someone with neo-Nazi views wouldn't want that term to be applied to his site, but there's a reason there's a negative connotation behind the term - the people described as being neo-Nazis all have similar views; that is, they're "seeking to revive the far-right-wing tenets of Nazism." That's a specific set of tenets, and if the shoe fits, the person holding those views should wear it. Editors cannot seek to hide the label that accurately describes those views under the cover of "far-right", which, as dsprc already said, is extremely broad. Rockypedia (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Rockypedia, the example of the South African AWB, which openly espouses white separatism and supremacy (its logo is clearly modelled on the German National socialist party) states in the lead that it "is a South African far-right separatist political and paramilitary organisation..." This gave me the impression that it was Wikipedia policy to use labels such as 'far-right' for a more neutral description of groups and organisations with far-right political views. --Ritsaiph (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia policy to describe any group in the manner in which reliable sources describe it. The "N" in NPOV means "neutral" - it doesn't mean "Never apply a negative term to any group if that term's connotations are very bad." What you're suggesting isn't a "more neutral" description - it's a whitewashed, watered-down description that's currently in vogue among white supremacist groups for marketing purposes. However, all that is irrelevant - if reliable sources refer to a group as "neo-Nazi" or "white supremacist", then that's how the Wikipedia article should read.

Also, thank you for calling my attention to the South African AWB page (and the page of its founder) - there's certainly no shortage of sources describing both as white supremacist and neo-Nazi; there's even video available of the group's followers giving Nazi salutes! Great work by you; I corrected those two pages to more accurately describe each subject. Thanks again. Rockypedia (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the moral of this story is don't give your website an aesthetic based on the Third Reich (and a name to boot) if you're afraid of the labels that will come '''tAD''' (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The current 'Neo-nazi and white supremacist' language is clear and descriptive (far-right may have a technical definition, but it is broad and not as well understood as a term). Contentious labels are best avoided unless reliably sourced in multiple independent sources. In this case, we have the New York Times and the LA Times both using the terms in articles that were subject to editorial oversight (the NYT piece was a page one print article as well). In the absence of multiple reliable sources that do not use the labels, we really have little choice but to use them as well. I recommend leaving the existing 'Neo-nazi and white supremacist' language. --Tgeairn (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I find I agree with the editors who believe "Far-right" is too broad a descriptor and am in favor of keeping more narrow descriptors like "Neo-Nazi". Fdssdf (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Neo-nazi and white-supremacist, because that's how sources describe it. Um, while I'm here... does anyone know why this is a "Engineering and Technology" GA? EEng 11:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• No. The paragraph should not read The Daily Stormer is a far-right news and commentary website. Instead, I favour The Daily Stormer is a Neo-nazi and white-supremacist news and commentary website. because that is the NPOV assessment of how reliable secondary sources characterise it and those latter words more accurately inform our readers than the rather wishy-washy and hazy "far-right". BushelCandle (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
• No. I would support "white supremacist and antisemitic" followed by "neo-nazi" in another sentence. The status quo is also acceptable, although neo-Nazis are inherently white supremacists. But I think this site is notable for its antisemitism. Its GA category (Engineering and technology) is a result of it being a website. Roches (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Traditionalist Youth Network

If anyone's feeling ambitious, Traditionalist Youth Network, linked from this article, needs work. I started in on it then realized it had been whitewashed to where you couldn't tell what this Network stands for, but the older version wasn't a whole lot better. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Washington Post article

New story in the Washington Post: ‘Get some of them to kill themselves’: Neo-Nazi site urges readers to troll liberals into suicide (Boston Globe mirror). Might be useful for the article. Grayfell (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Added. Also added from NYT, the site's direction to intimidate POC into feeling unwelcome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarcho-authoritarian (talk • contribs) 12:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Daily Stormer offline

The website has been offline for several weeks. This is contrary to what it says on the main article page, where it says status is "active." What you get instead is a quick flash of a message from Anglin, followed by an archived home page which is displayed by CloudFlare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.71.243.93 (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

it's working now with material dated yesterday. Doug Weller talk 07:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

"offline for several weeks"

It could be offline for you because your ISP has blocked it or your DNS server has blocked it, if you use OpenDNS.--46.109.68.92 (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2017

Update Alexa rank.

13,130 and increasing.

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/dailystormer.com 46.109.68.92 (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Done —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hosting service issue

On August 13 2017, the website was informed by its hosting company GoDaddy that it had violated the terms of service when Anglin published an article smearing Heather Heyer, who was killed at the 2017 Unite the Right rally. Anglin was given 24 hours to locate new hosting for the site.

The above piece of text was added but only cited from twitter. This is insufficient, especially for the lede. It also prompted users to change the grammatical case of the verb in the article from "is" to "was". This is inaccurate as the site is still up and even if it wasn't there's nothing to suggest that they plan to cease their activities. I've left the text above for reference and if it is properly cited it can be considered for re-inclusion. Edaham (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

There's a source here. This really should be included. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

 Thanks - I've added the ref and performed cleanup

I'm now considering a related text update Edaham (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

PF4Eva has reinstated the hosting service issue and added reasonable and verifiable links. Edaham (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I note that within the last hour the registrar has switched from GoDaddy to Google - this story may have legs yet. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

At the time when I added it to the lede, GoDaddy's Twitter was the only source available as news outlets had not yet picked it up. Considering GoDaddy's Twitter account is a verified account, I would say we should consider it to have equal weight to a press release. In either case it is the company itself releasing a statement.--Rosicrucian^Talk 16:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Deactivated?

I would welcome it if it were the case, but the website seems to be online. --92.74.43.26 (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Checking for a secondary source, but you appear, at first glance, to be correct. Rockypedia (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

do any sources shed light on the veracity of the anonymous hack? Appears to have been a hoax run by the site as it's functionality never appeared to cease. Edaham (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I think at the least we can say that Anglin's article after the "hack" is complete bullcrap regarding how he supposedly stopped Anonymous.--Rosicrucian^Talk 00:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

If you have a source for that, I'll be happy to add it. I already adjusted the text of the article to more accurately reflect the sources that were already there. Rockypedia (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't specifically have sources debunking Anglin's article, but it read like an Onion article and given the content I doubt even Anglin expected it to be taken seriously. Something nutty about him and Weev both typing on one keyboard and it being exactly like a 90's hacker movie.--Rosicrucian^Talk 01:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Offline now.

"we're having an outage. it'll be a minute. for the time being, those that know how please come chat on IRC: irc.dailystormer.com #dailystormer. IRC is not a website. you cannot type this into a web browser.

You can also come chat on the Daily Stormer Discourse server. This one is a men's social club explicitly. Download the discourse client, hit the plus sign to add a new server and paste this invite link in: https://discord.gg/QPE8rgs

if you were attempting to visit the forums/comment sections, our blog might still be up and working fine. likewise, if you were attempting to visit our blog, our forums might be still up.

also consider helping us with financial assistance right now. money gives us resources to manage outages better. " Doug Weller talk 10:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I just did a check, and the site is no longer accessible.

Server not found

Pale Moon can't find the server at dailystormer.com.

Y'all might want to validate and update the page. Even if it does come back up, having downtime like his probably should be noted. 24.4.177.214 (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I've replaced our indication of the site's status, which was previously either "terminated" or "Dormant but not yet terminated - Content replaced with a fake error message". This is wrong in several ways which I'd be happy to discuss if necessary. I've said the site is simply "currently unavailable". I note that at this time there are reports that the site is still available via Tor, and that the forum is still up and running on the normal Internet. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

.ru domain pulled on request by Russian communication watchdog

https://rkn.gov.ru/news/rsoc/news48958.htm https://meduza.io/news/2017/08/17/sayt-amerikanskih-neonatsistov-the-daily-stormer-zablokirovali-v-rossii-po-trebovaniyu-roskomnadzora https://www.svoboda.org/a/28681528.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.220.38.114 (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not just "requested a shutdown", according to the first link, RU-CENTER domain registrar already stopped delegation due to terms of service violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.188.124.123 (talk) 11:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Statement from 'Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman'

http://tass.com/politics/960829

"She pointed to the decision of Russian telecom watchdog Roskomnadzor to stop the operation of the American neo-Nazi site The Daily Stormer in the Russian domain extension.

"We will pursue a steadfast policy regarding this issue, fight against incidents of racial superiority, wherever it emerges from. We call on the authorities of other states to act quickly and harshly regarding similar sites that spread content recognized as extremist by the Russian courts on sufferance of foreign appropriate authorities," Zakharova said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4chan-pol (talk • contribs) 16:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

There's a new domain:

https://

dstormer6em3i4km.onion.link

DailyStormer.lol

Keep an eye out for a secondary source that confirms the site is back on the clear web. Cognissonance (talk | contibs) 18:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Did Daily Stormer team say that Cloudflare supported them secretly?

In an interview with Verge [2], Prince said “The thing that ultimately upset me was that on their forums, they were saying ‘Hey CloudFlare is one of us,’ which we aren’t,”. On the Cloudflare blog post [3], Prince said "The tipping point for us making this decision was that the team behind Daily Stormer made the claim that we were secretly supporters of their ideology."

However, on The Daily Stormer ([4] ... if down, go to daily stormer URL and append /matthew-prince-of-cloudflare-admits-he-killed-the-internet-because-he-thinks-andrew-anglin-is-an-asshole/), Andrew Anglin wrote that "And that, is absolute fucking bullshit. It is simply a lie. Which is why he didn’t provide a source for the claim. I have never said that, weev has never said that, no one on my team has ever said that.".

Now, I have a question -- given that we apparently only have Prince's word for the team saying that CF secretly supported them, can we add to this article something like "Andrew Anglin denied that his team made any such claim." and cite The Daily Stormer? It appears to satisfy WP:SELFPUB for me. --Nanite (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

If it satisfies WP:SELFPUB, it satisfies me. Non-controversial. Cognissonance (talk | contibs) 20:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Notability issues

Why not just delete this article and claim that the site isn't notable, just like Encyclopædia Dramatica. As it is, people can view the site's new URL and visit it to promote hate speech. The new URL is not visible in Google's search results, so without this page, fewer people could find it. 23.121.191.18 (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Ironically, you would probably be correct if there were not so much outrage in the news about DS. However since it's been reported on so much, it's highly notable. And due to WP:UNCENSORED it's not the duty of wikipedia to help join in widespread censorship campaign, but rather to describe the censorship. Take a gander at Category:Obscenity_controversies for a list of some other nasty articles, or moral panic for some more historical examples. Regarding Encyclopedia Dramatica, it seems they just haven't managed to reach the same notability (I get ~700 hits for ED vs ~200000 hits for DS on google news). --Nanite (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Nanite here. Whatever one's personal feelings are (mine are that the further this site gets buried, the better), once we start going down that censorship road, there's nothing but bad things at the end of it. We can't start deleting articles on things we don't like just because they're not present on the mainstream web. Rockypedia (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

And for that matter, this being the most prominent case of no-platforming in the current era has pretty firmly established notability. It's rather unprecedented, has garnered a lot of coverage, and thus while the Daily Stormer might have skirted notability before it's firmly something Wikipedia should cover now.--Rosicrucian^Talk 19:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

NameCheap blog update

I'm not sure how many people have read the NameCheap blog so far, but I just want to point out it's been updated: https://blog.namecheap.com/inciting-violence-vs-freedom-speech/ (new archive). The CEO of NameCheap, like that of Cloudflare, regrets that it was up to his arbitrary judgement to kick them off, and he wants rules in place. To quote: "Registrars need a set of guidelines just as the internet does that empowers or requires them to remain neutral and a clear judicial process to solve these types of issues quickly and effectively. These matters should not be solved in the courts of public opinion because public opinion is not always right.". This updated blog may prove to be very notable, so I just want to make a note of its existence here. (Looking into my crystal ball, I am anticipating a moralising code of conduct instated in ICANN rules. Judging from the damage that CoC have done to open source projects, this will probably be terrible.) --Nanite (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarify statements from NameCheap

Content regarding the actions of NameCheap require technical clarification, and thus, potentially more technically knowledgeable sources for such material.

As currently written, the technically inaccurate claim that "...Namecheap canceled the domain" fails verification as cited source makes no such claim. Even if the source did back such claims, we need technically correct language; not wildly inaccurate statements as "canceled the domain", refusing "access [to] the domain..." (refuse in what way? connecting to it? resolving it? what is access??), nor "the domain [being] deleted..." given ICANN rules, and the basic nature in which DNS operates. NameCheap may refuse delegation (and propagation) or refuse to authoritatively resolve via their name-servers, but they can not do the aforementioned (absent State compulsion -- a different matter entirely). -- dsprc ^[talk] 05:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Confirming "Dark Web" claim

Can anyone or has anyone confirmed the claim published by the Verge that the site is still accessible via Tor? Can whether or not the claim is true be reasonably added to the article? Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 17:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be the case, and references (such as this) are quoting a tweet and saying they've gone to Tor. Link: dstormer6em3i4km.onion (here's a proxy you can check for yourself) I'd prefer to see some reliable sources give the address before it's listed here, as they're easily spoofed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Daily Stormer is up again at https://dailystormer.ru/ accessible on the clear web not only TOR. Page should be edited to reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.146.167.154 (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it's back down again. They've gone through a few false starts, such as the .wang registration.--Rosicrucian^Talk 20:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This time it's Cloudflare (and Twitter) who have terminated them. That probably means the .ru site might still be used, but it's still quite significant as it means they've basically lost their main protection. Here's a reference if anyone wants to add it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Everyone else on the net is making it harder to access this hate site, are we sure that Wikipedia should make it easier by linking them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.153.156 (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED Wikipedia links to sites such as porn which is banned in many countries, but not in the USA where its server is based. The Daily Stormer is not illegal to access in its site of residence (USA) or the site of Wikipedia's servers (USA). Also, you referring to Wikipedia as "we" while being an IP kind of reminds me of this Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Neither is racial discrimination and by extension hatespeech. Posting a funny image isn't convincing me of anything. But this is not about the law because I'm sure Anglin can be charged with something, this is about values. The only question is this, at a time when many servers are refusing to host him thus making it harder to access this website, does Wikipedia want to be the one who made it easier? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.153.156 (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

IP, please read WP:NOTCENSORED. I'm not going to copy and paste it for you but it's all there, most importantly "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia". The link is fully relevant to the topic and not illegal under US law. It would be clearly irrelevant if it were placed on a page like Race and crime just like if Pornhub was linked on the page Breast. You are not more important than the site rules Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

On second thoughts, perhaps it'll be better if Wikipedia keeps linking his website. It maybe hard to find from Google but the instant a new open domain shows up it will be linked here. That makes it so much more easier for the Anti-Stormer forces to find his latest site and take it down or possibly DDOS it.

Removing the "(Accessing link help)" link next to the onion link would not be censoring the article, but would make it less easy for people to access the site. The onion link would still be there uncensored and usable by anyone. The onion link itself is appropriate, but Wikipedia should not be going out of its way to help this hate website get new users by linking to the tor page. --81.136.121.7 (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Limiting information to suit your political or ideological agenda is censorship. Increasing barriers to free and unfettered access to information is at odds with the mission of this project and counter to our aims. If you like don't it: don't read it -- but you don't get to decide for others what they're permitted to read. -- dsprc ^[talk] 23:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The site is accessible via clearnet if you just add a ".link" to the end. Like so... dstormer6em3i4km.onion.link Once the article is unlocked, or if a mod would be so kind as to update it, it would be in Wikipedia's best practices I would assume? Studio7manga (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

There are several Tor2web proxies of this type, however any URL containing '.onion' (technically, "\b[_\-0-9a-z]+\.onion\b") is blacklisted. That's not going to change, so any Tor links of this type need to be presented unlinked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz:@Studio7manga:@Dsprc:@Anarcho-authoritarian: Ah, sorry everyone I wasn't even watching this discussion --- you may be interested to know that I updated the {{Onion link}} template to provide a proxy access (using a proxy that doesn't have .onion in the link). I personally lean heavily towards non-censorship, for various reasons; one of which is that people can go visit the Daily Stormer site and see just how rude it really is. And WP:NOTCENSORED. --Nanite (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: I am having some doubts about whether my workaround should be valid or not. See: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#I_circumvented_the_onion_blacklist_to_link_Daily_Stormer. --Nanite (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Update: My workaround has now been blocked; I have requested a whitelist exception. --Nanite (talk) 04:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

 Nanite: You've invited the demons in, Nano... =D We've the 'link access' template which describes how to access the Enclave; so, it's mostly OK. (Annoying, but OK.) -- dsprc ^[talk] 05:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Should note the Censors--while well meaning--are particularly stubborn, and rarely whitelist such things. -- dsprc ^[talk] 05:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, this is all part of the fun! They already whitelisted silk road (a website full of illegal content), so how could they possibly object to the legal speech of "The World's Most Genocidal Republican Website"? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Anglin raised a similar question. NPOV of course requires whitelisting. --Nanite (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dsprc: Success! =D --Nanite (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this - I was just reviewing the site and found relevant commentary on several of the issues involved that I felt worth citing, and was pleasantly surprised to find a lack of obstacles to properly doing so.

That said, the banishing of The Daily Stormer marks a sea change in what the "dark web" means. In the past, Wikipedia may have looked at it as a reservoir for illegal or unnecessarily hard-to-access links. Now, however, the dark web is the only appropriate place for any website that a handful of companies entitled to do DNS registration happen to disagree with, or can be pressured into invoking "for any reason" TOSes against. It looks like Rebel Media is started along the same path, and it is hard to imagine there will not be many others. So I think it's high time we eliminated this blacklisting of .onion altogether. Wnt (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2017

Delete onion links to new DailyStormer website. Delete "External Links" section at the bottom. Block the user adding this (according to his website he is publishing Nazi content) 109.43.1.253 (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED. Wikipedia is not hosted in Germany but in the United States. There is no reason to remove this link any more than to remove the link on Pornhub as online porn is banned in dozens of non-US countries Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

so wikipedia will now start censoring links to a website? because linking to a website is now support for a website? what precedent does this set? A77B (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@A778: I don't understand. Someone who has never edited before makes a request to delete a link, the request is refused, and you think the refusal to delete the link is Wikipedia censoring links? Doug Weller talk 18:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2017

In the section labeled "Site hosting issues after the 2017 Unite the Right rally", the first sentence reads "The Daily Stormer helped organize the Unite the Right rally, a far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 11 and 12, 2017, in which a counter-protester, Heather Heyer, was killed in a vehicular ramming.".

The sentence should read "The Daily Stormer helped organize the Unite the Right rally, a far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 11 and 12, 2017, in which a counter-protester, Heather Heyer, was killed in a chain-reaction accident involving three vehicles.

The reason why the end of the sentence should be changed is that a reader may come to the false conclusion that the ramming was intentional, secondly, that the intentional ramming was performed by a single person, and lastly, that the motivation behind the intentional ramming involved particular political opinions. Aslanburnley (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: It's not your call to determine if it was an 'accident' or not. None of the details of vehicle order are significant. She died as a consequence of a vehicle ramming. That's plenty for this article. Grayfell (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Aslanburnley, I know what you're getting at, but I think due to the complexity we should stick with the kind of wording used on Unite_the_Right_rally#Vehicular_attack_and_homicide. --Nanite (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Note on recent pageviews

Above graph from {{Graph:PageViews }} --Nanite (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Will we get a spike from Fox News ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23-vtRWtpqk --Nanite (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Content deletions

Just about everything I added today has been removed in a set of deletions by User:Anarcho-authoritarian who claims that what the site has to say is "not notable". But WP:Notability does not apply to sentences in articles, and I always like to let the subject of an article have their say regarding relevant controversies. I don't think we can present the issue comprehensibly if we don't relate the site's comments about these things. Wnt (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

My mention of notability was the standard Wikipedia policy on secondary sources: that if DS days something notable, it will be reported in secondary sources. No secondary sources mentioned these despite the recent media circus. But you have convinced me you can put it back in. But be brief, we don't need the list of all pedo sites hosted by Tucows. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, notability is a concern over whether an article should exist at all. Perhaps Anarcho-authoritarian was annoyed about WP:UNDUE weight being placed on some things. Or that there is too much WP:RECENTISM.

Regarding sourcing, note that Anarcho-Authoritarian was happy to leave in the primary self-published source from NameCheap blog, while scrubbing out primary self-published sources from The Daily Stormer. In fact, both are perfectly valid and reliable sources for their own quotes, as according to WP:SELFPUB, and as Cognissonance supported above in #Did_Daily_Stormer_team_say_that_Cloudflare_supported_them_secretly.3F.

All that said, Wnt I don't think we have to go into too much detail about all the pedo sites that GoDaddy is hosting. A brief summary of Anglin's response to GoDaddy would be better than a flood of details and quotes. --Nanite (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see A-a responded more or less the same, ok. --Nanite (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that Namecheap and Daily Stormer are equivalent sources. Yes, both are self published, but Daily Stormer has a well-established negative reputation for accuracy and fact checking. We can assume that NameCheap is a reliable authority for NameCheap's own position if we have some valid reason to include that (which, again, would rely on secondary sources). Daily Stormer isn't even reliable for that, and should be weighed accordingly. If a reliable, independent source isn't reporting what Daily Stormer has to say, it really should not be passed-along without very careful consideration. We first need reliable sources to explain why anything the site says is noteworthy. To pass along their perspective risks false neutrality. NPOV does not mean we are obligated to pass along 'both sides' of a story, as though we were a press release service. Grayfell (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I do agree with that. The thing with selfpub sources (many sources even) is deciding which snippets to include in wiki, if at all. Arbitrarily highlighting one out of many statements can be an issue, and so it's much better if we can have the selection done for us by a secondary source. And of course, with any site that claims to be a mix of satire and opinion, this raises the question, how can we separate the two given the usual difficulties? --Nanite (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a recurring issue, especially with political articles. I'm not sure we need to separate the two in this particular case. If reliable sources don't do the work for us, we can just throw it all in the dumpster, where it belongs. If the Daily Stormer expects any legitimacy at all, they already shot themselves in the foot. They have advanced false claims before (such as MacronGate, which should probably be mentioned, actually) but even when they claim satire, that doesn't mean much. The Onion is satire with a political viewpoint, and The AV Club isn't, even though they are the same company. Onion Inc. isn't trying to blur the lines, and that makes all the difference. I don't think the Daily Stormer's brand of 'satire' is a legitimate defense, because claiming 'only joking' whenever anything is challenged undermines legitimacy. It's a childish tactic which no mature person takes seriously, nor should Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Nanite and Grayfell here. It is tempting at times to cherrypick quotes, but there is rarely a good encyclopedic reason for that. It's much better to use secondary sources, and if we can't find them then it probably is WP:UNDUE. Doug Weller talk 10:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how much of an RS is "The Wrap", but they interview Anglin: [5] (archive). --Nanite (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Having seen a few users delete what is simply a quote from the EFF—a well respected organization akin to the ACLU—twice under very spurious circumstances, and after additional sources were added, leads me to believe they want this article to have a particular POV which is fully negative and avoids discussion of the wider implications for speech. This is also me putting people on notice that the EFF statement will stand, so long as statements from the SPLC, etc are in the article. Follow your own rules. Studio7manga (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

"Govern yourself accordingly" eh? Anyway, Wikipedia strongly favors summaries over direct quotes. Why is this content vitally important based on only one secondary source? What information does the quote impart that the shorter summary doesn't? Grayfell (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

And I never "deleted" anything from the EFF, rather I trimmed a massive quote into a summary. But as a lot of users seem angry with that, I give up on it.

We've all heard the old adage "journalism is the first draft of history". All Wikipedia pages should be written in a style similar to our school history textbooks, not like news website articles. News websites can and often should publish quotes and statements in full but a Wikipedia article covering the entirety of a subject shouldn't do that.

I see people saying that the quotes from the SPLC must be balanced with views of other organizations. Let's look:

The SPLC described the site as "the newest up and comer in the heated competition to rule the hate web", which "has in the last six months [up to March 2015] often topped the oldest and largest hate site on the web, Stormfront, in terms of reach and page views, based on Alexa data".[8]

vs

The Electronic Frontier Foundation criticized efforts to deny a platform to The Daily Stormer, stating: "...we must also recognize that on the Internet, any tactic used now to silence neo-Nazis will soon be used against others, including people whose opinions we agree with. Those on the left face calls to characterize the Black Lives Matter movement as a hate group. In the Civil Rights Era cases that formed the basis of today's protections of freedom of speech, the NAACP's voice was the one attacked. Protecting free speech is not something we do because we agree with all of the speech that gets protected. We do it because we believe that no one—not the government and not private commercial enterprises—should decide who gets to speak and who doesn't."[75][76]

It's a nothing argument that I don't think I understand Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't see why it's unfair to call the Daily Stormer a hate site when the Daily Stormer flat-out calls itself a hate site.--Rosicrucian^Talk 01:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Gab link

This is regarding adding a see-also link to Andrew Anglin's Gab.ai profile. Social networking links are specifically discouraged per WP:ELNO and WP:ELPEREN. This is especially true in this case, where Anglin isn't the main subject of the article. On the other hand, Andrew Anglin is a redirect here, and the official site is extremely difficult to access. I do not think those pros outweigh the cons. I dunno, thoughts? Grayfell (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

JINX! :D --Nanite (talk) 07:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I am on the fence about including the following in the External Links section:

• Editor Andrew Anglin's profile on Gab.ai.

Arguments against:

• WP:ELNO - #10 (no social media links)
• WP:ELMINOFFICIAL : too many official links is annoying. The front page of Daily Stormer has an ALLCAPS link to the Gab profile and so the gab link is redundant.

Arguments for:

• WP:ELNO - #7 (no sites requiring Tor browser). When the Daily Stormer is off the clearnet, the only clearnet links we could provide are either 1) links via a Tor2web proxy service, or 2) link to the gab profile.
• WP:ELOFFICIAL : Depening how you read, it should be included. Note that WP:ELNO does not apply to official links.
• Presently Andrew Anglin redirects to The Daily Stormer, as Anglin is apparently not independently notable.

I ended up adding it, and Grayfell removed it. As you can see from the above I'm not strongly convinced either way. Does anyone happen to have a firm opinion on this? --Nanite (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Well...

1. Without having a GAB account, this profile is very light on content. There is nothing there other than links to the site and begging for money/bitcoin. If this doesn't contain much more content, that's enough reason not to bother. Creating an account isn't a big of a deal, but it's still a tick in the 'no' column.
2. Do we have reliable confirmation that this is Anglin's? That would be hilarious if it was spoofed, but also not totally implausible.

I guess I didn't really need the numbered list for two things. Grayfell (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• We should definitely link Gab but I prefer a real cite (and text explanation) to an external link. We have sources like this that link Gab directly to this controversy. Their role seems somewhat balanced between provider and partisan in the sense that they have that manifesto up about the fired Google worker. It is possible that this is actually a rare insight on a much broader social context, since the manifesto links this to the companies imposing technical measures against "fake news" including various non-racist conservatives. (even http://wsws.org prominently says it is being censored by Google, and they're socialists!) So this Gab link may be a little detail but there is a whole lot connected to it if we take enough trouble to trace it out. (as I say above, some of this will want to move to a new article as we develop it) Wnt (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to add section on pro/con speech implications re site hosting issues

Considering a lot of different entities are weighing in on the issue of speech and hosting issues, I think it's a good idea to add a new section or subsection where we can put statements from the EFF, ADL, lawmakers, or whoever regarding the issue. Studio7manga (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Given that quite a few sites other than the Daily Stormer are now facing this, I'd suggest it be its own article rather than just a section on the Daily Stormer article. It's noteworthy enough, and people might search for it without thinking to go to the Daily Stormer article.--Rosicrucian^Talk 22:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see it. These sources are mostly op-eds. The LA Times article isn't, but it's clear that companies were within their legal rights to do this. If this is a "free speech" issue and not an incitement issue, this would need to be supported and explained by substantial independent sources about this controversy. More curated morsels from the endless buffet of political opinion is the last thing Wikipedia needs. Grayfell (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I like the suggestion Rosicrucian, if you want to start it feel free, otherwise I'll think of a name and start it in a day or two. Possible titles: public access issues on the internet? Internet and free speech? Alternatively we could expand on the sections here Freedom_of_speech#The_Internet_and_information_society or Internet_censorship or elsewhere. Grayfell, the hosting issue is prompting the discussion if such private entities should be within their legal right to do it; for example, the electric company can't pull the plug on a business if it finds out they are running a sex shop because the electric company is regulated as a public utility. Studio7manga (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with my point. Hand-wringing op-eds about Internet censorship aren't enough to make an article. For obvious reasons, Wikipedia has a bias towards articles on freedom and information, so there are already many, many articles about this general topic. Category:Internet censorship and Category:Internet governance are just scratching the surface. Adding yet another to the mix is not necessarily making anything clearer, it's just adding a high risk of a WP:POVFORK. That's why I said we need reliable, independent sources specifically about this debate, not examples of sides in the debate. If such sources exist, and this isn't redundant, this could be a new article, but neither of those are trivial.

As for the sex shop thing... Is that sex shop facilitating and inciting violence against minorities? If Internet is a utility, so be it, but hypothetical sex shops have to abide by zoning and building codes. Subsidized electricity to power a bare-wired, sparking twenty-foot tall neon sign isn't the same as a basic right to light and heat. If a business's use of a electricity is a danger to others, the power company absolutely does have the right, and obligation, to shut them down, no matter how willing they are to pay their bills. If Internet is treated as a basic utility, which is a good debate to have, an individual right to Internet also mean individual responsibility. Free speech has never meant freedom from consequences. Grayfell (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Our article on Freedom of speech points out that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals". The article continues:" Therefore, freedom of speech and expression may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury." And of course laws in different countries vary dramatically. In the US itself there are a lot of exceptions: United States free speech exceptions. These include Fighting words and offensive speech. A lot of these cries for "free speech" have little basis in law and are, of course, by people who if ever in power would probably deny it to others. Doug Weller talk 13:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's one problem no one seems to have mentioned - Freedom of Speech, at least in the United States Constitution, means that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech..." - well, what law did Congress establish that abridged anyone's freedom of speech? They didn't. The Daily Stormer, and everyone associated with it, haven't had their First Amendment rights violated, and a debate on whether they have is frivolous, as there have been no laws passed that affected them in the least. A section of free speech in this article would be totally off-topic, as the government has not acted in any way to curtail their free speech rights, a distinction that seems to have been lost on the authors of a couple of opinion columns that I've read on this topic. Rockypedia (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

What we really need here is a full new article. The sudden intrusion of DNS servers as a censorship authority is a major historical development. So is the widespread advocacy of cyberbullying tactics. (To be clear, some sites, including Daily Stormer itself, have long advocated these, but not mainstream media and celebrities) But it would be best if there are some secondary sources we can find to delimit the phenomenon, and ideally to name it - I don't like the notion of just having editors brainstorm a headline like Private DNS censorship following the Charlottesville vehicle attack, because what if it's really a reaction to the rally, to legal contexts affecting DNS servers etc.? What if it's not really private forces driving it but government intimidation? What if the rackspace is also a target and we weren't paying attention, or if the allegations about Tor censoring turn out to be true? So I think we definitely should expand the section pretty freely, beyond what fits in a single article, bearing in mind that we're looking to do a split - hopefully in a planned and sourceable way, but doing it in any case once we have too much content to otherwise readily contain here. Wnt (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Wnt: It's not so clear to me right now what is going on. Let's wait until the end of the year when the dust has really settled. By then I think we'll hear of a few more censorship cases. Also, the moral panic around the Charlottesville rally will hopefully have subsided, enough for everyone to coldly consider how much they value free speech. --Nanite (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I expect that most of the meaningful commentary will be written within a week, maybe two, though some additional academic sources will chime in over months, years, even decades. I don't want to do this in a mad rush, but with as much speed as editors find convenient. A big issue is that as the section gets bigger and bigger we'll have too many people, unfortunately, trying to "bring it down to proportion", which means that splitting the article means digging through the history for unnecessarily discarded bits. That gets harder in proportion to the time waited. Wnt (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Algeria

The site is now online with an Algerian domain name. I have no idea how or why and despite the media circus, there is no coverage of this at the moment. This would be interesting to note, if only the sources existed. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

No - .al is Albania. I have to tell you, if back in 1987 somebody had told me that American racists would be looking to Albania to give them freedom of speech, I could have lost a lot of money on a wager. Wnt (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Searching for stormer albania on Google News I found this, which gives some credit to dnspod.cn (China) for the site DNS, which is configured to look like it is through Google somehow. That surprises me less - just try farming some bile bears without a business license using novel synthetic fentanyl analogues to anaesthetize them in the U.S... Wnt (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting:

• https://dailystormer.al/the-algerians-who-got-us-online/ claims that they got domain via http://bulletproof.al/
• Bulletproof.al rather bruntly says on their frontpage: "We are not law enforcement or judges. Don't like something? Report it to the Albanian authorities and let the courts handle it. Thank you "
• My command-line whois reports "This TLD has no whois server.". As mentioned by the article linked by Wnt there, according to http://whois.marcaria.com/?q=dailystormer.al they are name-servered via ns1.google.com and ns2.google.com.
• Note that in the Gizmodo article Wnt linked they have a fake datestamp for the Albania registration as "Update 8/17/17 9:11pm ET". Compare http://archive.is/XGujp (Aug 24 -- had no edits) http://archive.is/p1pZH (Aug 29 -- has edits).
• Anglin just made this long-form interview today: https://www.bitchute.com/video/Hz23dgJZNvWs/ ; in the first couple minutes, he claims some Cisco routers are blocking access.

--Nanite (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I assumed the Gizmodo update was a simple typo and they wanted 8/27/17. The rest is more mysterious... Wnt (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not that much of a mystery if you keep in mind who the admin of the Daily Stormer is. bulletproof.al is most probably a cover registrar owned by the Daily Stormer, also since .al doesn't support whois there's not much use in looking for nameservers there, host -t dailystormer.al will resolve the correct nameservers to dnspod. --84.237.229.57 (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Well they lasted three days on that one, but it's over: http://archive.is/l9Mpv http://archive.is/h5u9p . They got kicked off by AKEP, presumably by order of Albanian government. http://www.zdnet.com/article/another-domain-host-drops-neo-nazi-site-daily-stormer/ (archive)

It would appear this is one of those rare times when the .onion address is more stable than the clearnet one. :D --Nanite (talk) 07:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Side drama over Trump

There is some ongoing contention about whether Anglin endorsed Trump because he said that Mexican immigrants were causing problems or Mexican illegal immigrants. I reverted ClueBot last week because apparently it has been programmed to remove the phrase "illegal immigrant" from Wikipedia, but I did not think that Trump had made a blanket statement about all Mexican immigrants and so that violated BLP. But someone reverted me,[6] citing Washington Post that he said it about all Mexican immigrants.[7] Well, I looked further and in context that he spoke about speaking with "border guards" immediately afterward, I still think he meant illegals only, but it's not as clear as I'd like. As it presently stands, the whole thing was taken out by the last person to revert.

This is a tricky subject - we don't want to violate Trump's BLP, we should convey his actual position and/or how it looked to Anglin (and racists in general?). The relation of Trump's campaign to racism and the popularity of racism and the reaction against racism is of top relevance to understanding the political context here. So I'm loath to leave it in the current stump form but maybe someone can suggest a better way. Wnt (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

dailystormer.at

New clearweb URL, should be added to body of article. 66.87.30.33 (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

The daily stormer website can now be accessed on the normal web at: www.dailystormer.at

Please can this be added to the external links Cholas1 (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the late(-ish) reply, but the .at site has been revoked and it's online again on a .is domain (Iceland) Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Remarkably clear-headed and serious statement from Anglin

His new WP blog (archive) -- linked from this gab post. A selected quote:

The real joke, like all of my best jokes, was not the post itself but the response that I knew it would provoke.

...

The fallout from it shows that the ruling powers are extremely unhappy with the way things shook out. They miscalculated, they made me into a folk hero and a martyr, and they turned themselves into megalomaniac super-villains intent on using suppression of speech to direct the course of society.

It could not have came together more perfectly.

It may be necessary in the future to reclassify The Daily Stormer as performance art and put it on the library shelf beside A Modest Proposal. ;-) --Nanite (talk) 10:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Neo-Nazis generally have a knack for retroactively recasting the situation so that they were right all along while also still playing the victim. Without this knack, they wouldn't be neo-Nazis for very long. Anglin is trying to make these events fit the existing narrative. Swift was satirizing simplistic solutions to complicated problems, and few things are as simplistic as Anglin's view of the world. Even if a secondary source comments on Anglin's self-indulgent nonsense, it's hard to see how this would benefit the article, but it does demonstrate that he hasn't changed in the slightest. Grayfell (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Pure speculation and opinion on the part of both of you. Stevo D (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

.is VS .cat

An anon IP changed the URL of the Stormer; I'm not sure if it was accurate (it WAS unsourced) but as his other edit was pure disruption, I undid this one too. If I'm wrong, feel free to revert my reversion. I'm not typing in a Daily Stormer URL myself to check it, sorry. Rockypedia (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems they have been booted from Iceland (.is) for not providing confirmation of identity, and .cat is indeed the latest. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

This is from Anglins Gab.[8] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

And now that hostname is down as well.[9] --Rosicrucian^Talk 18:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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[10]. --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.[11] 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)

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)

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.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)

@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)

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. [12] "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)

The Goyim Know BBS

https://bbs.thegoyimknow.to/top In reaction to the sustained campaign of censorship, the Daily Stormer seems to have "mirrored" it's BBS (forum) to "The Goyim Know" on "clearnet". Not sure if this is considered relevant to an article named "The Daily Stormer", because it has a completely different name, but the forum itself looks exactly the same, the posts from when it was named "The Daily Stormer BBS" are all there, accounts still functional, logons working, etc... I'm sure it's the same as the old Daily Stormer Forum, but there may be some legal technicality that makes it somehow different now. Posting this to see if anyone thinks it should be included in the article.Jim Meadows (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

You really are intent on promoting that vile website, aren't you? Yeah, "concerned about censorship and free speech" my great Aunt Fanny. Beyond My Ken a.k.a. The Great Screecher (talk) 04:23, 8 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:DFTT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:48, 6 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)

If you feel that way, try to see if you can delete the article on Der Sturmer, or on Protocols of Elders of Zion, some other such thing. In fact you will find that such antisemitic things *do* belong on wikipedia. We don't censor. --Nanite (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course they belong in the encyclopedia, because they are not antisemitic articles, they are articles about antisemitic things, which is something else entirely. Jim Meadows seems to want our articles to reflect his personal views, but we don't put antisemitic ideas -- such as "the media is controlled by Jews" -- in Wikipedia's voice, just ain't gonna happen, so Jim Meadows should perhaps find some other place to express his opinions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm with Beyond My Ken on this. If Jim Meadows doesn't like how we source content, they are free to take their complaints to another website. This is not a discussion forum about censorship or the merits of hate speech. This page is for discussing edits to improve the article based on reliable sources as defined in WP:RS.- MrX 🖋 23:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The article would be improved by listing all the various Daily Stormer's domain names that have been seized. The article currently lists a domain name that has been seized.On November 29, 2017, the site returned to the clear web yet again with a new .red domain name, registered through GKG.net

The current domain name is "https://dailystormer.name/". In the Google search results, the "Header" line is "Daily Stormer – The Most Censored Publication in History", yet a word search reveals the article doesn't contain a single iteration of the word "censor". And again, as I mentioned in a previous, now deleted comment, the title of the section "Site hosting issues after the 2017 Unite the Right rally" should be changed to include the word "Censorship". "Hosting Issues" is a poor word choice, and may be considered by some as an act of censorship itself. Calling censorship something other than censorship IS censorship, and Wikipedia is not censored. I think a nice chart showing the various registrars and domain names over time would illustrate the fact of Daily Stormer's censorship better than the text-only description that is there now.Jim Meadows (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

"Censorship" can only take place through official actions of government entities. The actions of private companies, such as the ISPs that shut down the previous sites can not be "censorship", because there is no legitimate expectation of free speech. That is the case here on Wikipedia, which is a privately-owned website, and which everyone uses under the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. Editors can be blocked from using this site, or any other WMF site, or all of them, and they can be restricted from various activites by way of a "topic ban" or other editing restrictions. None of this is "censorship" in any way, shape, or form, because -- just like any home, or commercial building, or shopping mall or factory -- this is private property and your "rights" in regard to it are extremely limited. Given this, a section on the "censorship" of TDS would be inappropriate, as none took place. TDS simply violated the TOS (terms of service) of those sites, and was shut down on that basis, the same way that Facebook and Twitter are shutting down hate sites similar or worse then The Daily Stormer by tightening their terms of service. If the government was doing this, it would rightfully be called "censorship", but it is not, so it isn't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

First Beyond My Ken(talk), in a previous and now-deleted post, lied and attributed a quote to me that I did not make (in the vein of "Jews control the media"), then he referred to me as a "Nazi" in order to suppress my speech here, and now he is simply making things up. A quote from Wikipedia's own article titled "Censorship"

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or "inconvenient" as determined by government authorities or by community consensus.

I think something needs to be done about this Editor, as it's obvious he is here with a political agenda, and not here to "make Wikipedia better".Jim Meadows (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: @Jim Meadows: @MrX: please stop deleting comments that you disagree with, it is very poor form and makes it hard for others to follow the actual discussion being had. My two cents --- Jim, suppose you are correct that there is an agenda and censorship of Daily Stormer; even then, the fact alone is not what matters, you still would have to find a reliable source to include in the article. --Nanite (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Nanite, how do you you know I don't agree with the comments? I could very well be a neo-Nazi. I deleted the comments per policy because this is not a forum for complaining or soapboxing. I will continue to do this unless there are specific edit improvements being discussed, accompanied by reliable sources.- MrX 🖋 11:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

MrX is correct. WP:NOTAFORUM is policy and will be enforced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be objective and @Beyond My Ken has hardly been constructive here but rather shown flagrant bias and has personally attacked a variety of people both here and elsewhere. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral and objective database of knowledge and behavior as shown by Ken above as per "Bullshit... garbage... has no place on Wikipedia, and will be deleted wherever it's found" is clearly inappropriate. This user has also personally attacked me elsewhere so this is clearly an ongoing trend. TorontonianOnlines (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

"Antisemitic garbage and Fascist and neo-Nazi propaganda has no place on Wikipedia." This is correct and appropriate. Garbage doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and the subset of garbage which is fascist/antisemitic especially doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The pretense of civility while attacking others isn't true civility. Recognizing garbage is useful to improving the project, and pretending that fascism and antisemitism can be "objective" is not conductive to a civil editing environment. We are not interested in supporting intolerance as an excuse for a "free speech" shell game. Grayfell (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Commentary website?

Don't most if not all reliable sources refer to it as an opinion tabloid? A "commentary website" offers actual commentary. All Anglin and his "troll army" writers do is write posts filled with the most offensive racial epithets, false claims, calls for genocide, and subjecting anyone they hate to organized harassment and bullying campaigns. A "commentary website" would offer legitimate commentary on news without resorting to such tactics. Daily Stormer is even more extreme and offensive than Der Sturmer.

Are there sufficiently legit sources to back the claim of being a "commentary website" rather than a hate blog? Mansheimer (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Does "commentary" imply legitimacy? That's not my impression, but perhaps so. There's no disputing they are a hate site, but I don't recall many sources describing it as a blog. "Commentary" is supported by the NYT source: "a neo-Nazi mixture of message boards and sarcastic commentary..."[13] but the context is a bit different, clearly. There seems to be some support for "fake news" which I'm sure would be a badge of pride to them. Most sources just call it a "website", but that seems too vague for our purposes. Grayfell (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

That source says it contains commentary not that it is primarily a commentary website. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, the context is different. Are you suggesting we include the "message board" or forum or similar? Expecting "primarily" to be spelled-out is asking for too much from this source, also. It only spends two paragraph discussing the site, so it needs to be succinct. This is helpful, since we're trying to do the same in the lede. The NYT would not use the word "commentary" if it did not think it was helpful in explaining the site, and don't recall seeing any sources which dispute this description. Grayfell (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not disputing that it engages in commentary but picking out something like that from one source to just describe something in the infobox and lead when it is not in the article seems a bit unusual to me. Also not even sure if adding message board be appropriate either, as that does not really seem to be mentioned in the article either. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure either. In addition to mentioning the ideology of the site (which every source does), we also need to indicate the actual content of the site. That's the kind of thing article readers are looking for, after all. Stormfront (website) is an "internet forum" Metapedia is an "electronic encyclopedia", The Right Stuff (blog) is a "blog". Daily Stormer is... an especially disparate cry for attention? I dunno. "Commentary" seems acceptable to me, and "fake news" seems like a possibility, but I'm also curious to hear more suggestions. Grayfell (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)