Talk:The Daily Stormer

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)

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)

Ethnic background and other issues

Is it noteworthy to state in the article speculations from fellow white supremacists about his ethnic background (eg that he isn't 100% "white" or Caucasian or European or whatever), as well as the fact he himself has admitted to dating and having sexual relations with underage girls in the Philippines? The article mentions a sentence or two about his travels in Southeast Asia, but this very much glosses over a lot of facts. There is a video, for example, I believe now deleted from YouTube but on LiveLeaks but has been referenced in mainstream sources that talks about his predilections for underage girls, but given BLP issues and this isn't an area I can afford to spend much time researching in depth, perhaps others can take up this mantle if policy allows for such statements based on fact. But considering how much speculation exists in so many Wikipedia articles because they are sourced from opinion authors and well-known pundits, is such speculation in articles within boundaries of policy? Mansheimer (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Support for Jeremy Corbyn

Given there's a section on his support for Trump, ostensibly in order to show the link between Trump and the All Right it makes sense to add a section on Anglin's support for Jeremy Corbyn

America’s top neo-Nazi website officially endorsed UK’s socialist Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn in days leading up to the British general election — because he’s “seriously anti-Jew.”

“I am actually, literally endorsing him,” wrote Andrew Anglin, publisher of the Daily Stormer wrote on June 7. Anglin even update the banner on his website to include an image of Corbyn’s face, looking sternly over the London skyline.

One of the main reasons for this endorsement, Anglin goes on, is because he believes Corbyn “is genuinely against Israel.”

Jonacker (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Wouldn't that kind of opinion and speculation constitute egregious violation of WP:BLP and subject Wikipedia to libel laws in the UK? Mansheimer (talk) 08:51, 1 July 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..."[1] 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)

Domain Names: "Cancelled" vs. "Seized", etc...

My issue centers on finding the correct terminology/phrasing for the process whereby a Registrar (such as GoDaddy, Namecheap, etc...) takes possession of a domain name. While working on the Wikipedia Article on Gab, and came here as well as the Wiki Article on Stormfront to see what language was used. It's not standardized/consistent, as far as I can tell.

I've registered a few domains myself, so I am familiar with the process. Initially you fill out an electronic form online, pay a fee, and within an hour or so you have your domain name Registered via email and/or sometimes telephonic confirmation. However, I suspect that most of this is automated in the first stage, and the registration is not finalized immediately. In this first, early stage, I think it's possible for a Registrar to "cancel" a domain name before it becomes (more or less) "permanent".

However, after this, I do not believe that a domain name can be simply "cancelled" by the Registrar. Instead it must go through a different process, where it is "seized". Meaning that a domain name can be either "cancelled" or "seized", and that these are two different things, and these words are both precise and meaningful, and other words are less so. Perhaps these processes and words are defined in some kind of ICANN rule or regulation. Point is that they are not the same thing, and any other words used to describe how a Registrant (domain name "owner") can lose their domain name are inaccurate. I'm trying to nail this down, so that first it can be applied to the Wikipedia Article on Gab, and second I'm thinking it might be a constructive project to go to other Wikipedia Articles on websites, where their domain names have either been "cancelled" or "seized", and edit/correct the language on all of them so that they are all accurate, and standardized. If anyone knows more about this than I do, and/or can aim me in a helpful direction, I would appreciate it.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)