Talk:The Daily Stormer/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

Andrew Anglin

Should Anglin not have his own page at this point? His section features details that aren't particularly pertinent to The Daily Stormer per se.

He should. Together with info about his international links and assistants. Zezen (talk) 10:42, 16 December 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)

Is there any reason to keep this old, unsourced, speculation? Jeff1948a (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2019 (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)

So if a neo-nazi endorses Trump everyone in the world must know of it, but if a neo-nazi endorses a leftist we should hide it to not make them look bad? Alex of Canada (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Stormer's support for Trump was in response to multiple campaign promises which Trump made, including measures that would slow illegal immigration, and an end to foreign intervention. The Daily Stormer's "support" for Jeremy Corbyn is more like trolling. Corbyn takes a principled stand against some Israeli policies, which puts him at odds with the British and international Jewish political establishment. He isn't anti-semetic or what might be called "counter-semetic". The DS is playing up Corbyn's narrow objections hyperbolic-ally. A leftist like Corbyn would never be an ally to DS supporters. Jeff1948a (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

A page about Andrew Anglin

A page about the editor would be interesting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I doubt that he's notable outside of the context of the website, and there's already a section about him on this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Did the lawsuit take the website down?

I just read in the news about a recent $14 million dollar judgment against the owner of the Daily Stormer. I checked the website and it appears to be down. Is this related to the judgment or is it just a fluke? Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

There's a BBC news article suggesting they've gone back to the dark web, but I don't know how current they are. The Tor link we have in the article shows the site itself is currently up (and still spouting shite). Whether either Bitmitigate or Anglin have temporarily removed the site from the clear webs I don't know. It will probably become apparent at some point. Going by Epik's reputation it might just be temporary. Either way I doubt it's a fluke. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be up right now. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Offtopic paragraph about Stormfront

It's not immediately clear to me why the following paragraph, which seems to only talk about Stormfront (website) (and Celeb Jihad), is in this article as opposed to that one:

Vice News noted that Stormfront remained a client of Cloudflare; also (as echoed in commentary from a new blog by Andrew Anglin) that GoDaddy remains a registrar for Celeb Jihad, which features leaked or hacked sexual videos of celebrities. The next day Stormfront's domain name was seized by Network Solutions, enforcing terms of service against "bigotry, discrimination or hatred". Prompted by correspondence from the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the action prevented the site, which had operated for 20 years, from reemerging under a different registrar.

I suggest moving it, or more clearly establishing its relevance to this topic. -sche (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

References

I have moved the paragraph out of the article, to here. Someone may wish to incorporate it into the Stormfront article. -sche (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

hitpiece citations

please refrain from citing major journals that talk about the daily stormer they are unrelated to the article and violate the NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.247.50.70 (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC) #

So sources which discuss The Daily Stormer are irrelevant to an article about the Daily Stormer? That makes no sense. NPOV means we should show all significant opinions with a balance towards the majority opinions in reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Hypocrisy and Irony

If The Daily Stormer denies Holocaust, then why they support Genocide of Jews? 03/19/19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.144.127.55 (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

It is possible for people to believe that the Holocaust didn't happen but wish for the future genocide of Jews. In their "style guide" they said they have a deliberate policy of using outrageous language so that readers found it hard to tell whether stories are real or parody. When they say "gas the Jews", for example, they are mocking death showers Holocaust claims. They are desensitizing people to the Holocaust with this hyperbolic language and also calling the Holocaust into question. Jeff1948a (talk) 08:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Opening description not supported by referenced sources

The opening sentence of this article currently reads "The Daily Stormer is an American far-right neo-Nazi, white supremacist, and Holocaust denial commentary and message board website that advocates for the genocide of Jews.[1][2][3][4]" The first four references are news articles, all very openly highly critical of the daily stormer and it's creator, and despite that none of them contain any quotes or direct claims of genocide advocacy. Many may think this a miner discrepancy but I disagree. I think there is a very big difference between a message board whose members discuss violence as a method of achieving a goal that doesn't necessarily involve killing anyone vs a message board whose editorials advocate killing off as many members of a race/ethnicity as possible.

I think describing an articles subject as something presumably far worse than what the subject appears to actually be, and in the opening sentence, is a clear POV violation. It's also dishonest, whether or not intentionally. Darkestaxe (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Those newspapers are all considered to be wp:reliable sourcesm and we report what reliable sources say. That's not PoV, that's merely SOP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Alex Jones

The article should not describe Alex Jones as "not being sufficiently anti-semitic". The implication here is that Jones is anti-semitic. In light of the fact that his wife is Jewish, that's absurd. Furthermore, I don't think it would be sufficient to describe in whose voice this assertion is being made. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

"BLP... UNDUE... NPOV etc"

Ad Orientem, please explain how each of those apply to this edit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Daily_Stormer&diff=966749153&oldid=966747834

soibangla (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I was in the process of posting a formal caution on your talk page. But I will leave it here since you have opened this discussion. Please do not post quotes from fringe personages that have received scant attention in reliable secondary sources in a manner that is transparently intended to defame a prominent living person. This violates BLP, UNDUE and NPOV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, BuzzfeedNews is a RS. It is a direct quote from an individual who is confirming observations made by others, albeit in far more direct terms, such that it doesn't fall under Godwin's Law. It may be a disturbing quote for some, but there is no defamation made or intended here, and this is not Carlson's BLP. soibangla (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

soibangla first off the cited source is an op-ed piece that is intended as an attack on Carlson. It is not a story in a mainstream news outlet. Further Buzzfeed has been the subject of numerous discussions at WP:RSN with deep concerns found about it, though it has not yet been officially deprecated. Secondly, something that negative would need coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources. Third, it is intended both there and in your edit to paint Carlson as an ally of these odious people. Lastly, BLP does not apply just to articles about a person. It applies to the entire project including even talk page discussions. I am not sure which I find more disturbing, your naked attempt to associate Carlson with these people, or your apparent failure to understand some of the most important policies and guidelines in the project. That you don't grasp how egregious that edit was is causing me to question whether you should be editing sensitive/hot button topics like this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem I don't see that it's an opinion piece, in the byline or the URL. Further Buzzfeed has been the subject of numerous discussions Note on RSN that Buzzfeed and Buzzfeednews have split. to paint Carlson as an ally of these odious people But this is not what Carlson is saying, he is passive here, it's what someone else is saying about him. I would like you to explain to me some of the most important policies and guidelines I have violated, when innumerable other characterizations have been made about innumerable other individuals in innumerable articles, but this particular one is deemed to cross the line. causing me to question whether you should be editing sensitive/hot button topics like this is really quite a remark. soibangla (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I think this needs to handled at ANI. I am going to open the discussion directly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem I look forward to reading it. soibangla (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

This kind of "unwanted endorsement" reminds of the discussion when David Duke supported Ilhan Omar (discussed at Talk:Ilhan Omar/Archive 6#Support from white supremacists section). Since this is, in a way, very negative information and something that the BLP subject can't affect, I would be opposed to adding it based on mediocre sources like Buzzfeed News. Furthermore, per the sources in this article, The Daily Stormer engages in trolling, so you need to be quite careful about connecting their more or less trollish comments to other BLPs. --Pudeo (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

For the record, no consensus was reached to support any of the allegations made here, some of which were quickly shown as factually incorrect before the matter was taken to ANI, others being incendiary and maligning my character, or to support an effort to ban me for a single edit among the many thousands I’ve made. I’m pretty sure that, as an admin, Ad Orientem knows the right thing to do here now. The only question is whether he will demonstrate a modicum of courage and integrity to do it.

POV Editing at The Daily Stormer

Soibangla hasn't done anything wrong by making a bold but well-sourced edit, and the only red flag I see is Ad Orientem escalating to AN/I for a reasonable, appropriately sourced edit without checking the source's reliability...The community has determined that BuzzFeed News is a reliable source. You don’t get to selectively disregard that consensus simply because you personally don’t like the source or its content. Soiblanga did everything right here - he made an edit accurately conveying the content of a reliable source and, when you reverted him, he went to the talk page and calmly discussed it. Threatening him with a block or topic ban is really out of line. User:MastCell

soibangla (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

To be clear (since I'm quoted), whether or not the item belongs in this article is a matter to be resolved here by editorial discussion. The content is supported by BuzzFeed News, which the community has deemed to be a reliable source. (If people disagree with that assessment, they need to address it at WP:RS/N and try to change consensus—not just ignore community consensus because they personally dislike or distrust a source or its content). Of course, appropriate sourcing is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion, as there are also considerations of WP:WEIGHT and so on.

My objection was to the short-circuiting of the appropriate WP:BRD cycle, to the immediate escalation to AN/I of a normal editorial process, and to the inappropriate substitution of personal opinion for community consensus in assessing the sourcing. Now that it's back here, discussion can continue as to whether the item belongs in the article or not; input at the AN/I thread seemed to favor excluding it on grounds of WP:WEIGHT and WP:COATRACK. MastCell ^Talk 19:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It does not belong. Worse than the guilt by association canard. Zezen (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Updates needed

The article appears to rely predominantly on sources from 2017 and 2018, while there have been many significant changes since then, e.g. the domain name which is now under .su, Anglin no longer considering himself part of the alt-right (which he now claims to oppose as some kind of controlled opposition), his opposition to Richard Spencer and other prominent alt-right figures, etc. This is to say nothing of Anglin's conspiracy theories regarding the coronavirus and associated lockdowns, which have been a major focus point of Daily Stormer since early 2020. However, there do not appear to be any recent reliable sources documenting these various changes, or at least I have not been able to dedicate enough time to finding them. I have also not found any secondary sources regarding Anglin's coronavirus denialism, which has become a major feature of his output. Those with enough time may wish to see if their searches will turn up anything of note. Laval (talk) 10:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Bitcoin

The following statement has been unsourced for some time: "The site is believed to have received over $200,000 in Bitcoin contributions since it began accepting the cryptocurrency in 2014. A current cryptocurrency wallet has consistently kept approximately $80,000 in Bitcoin on hand." What was the original source of this? Laval (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

spelling

'judgement' should be 'judgment' 213.109.221.152 (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Storming of the Capitol

I'd like to add something about Anglin's reaction to the Jan 6 storming of the Capitol - here's a quote from an Anti-Defamation League blog "On the Daily Stormer website, neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin lashed out at former Vice President Pence and U.S. Senator Rand Paul for their failure to praise the Capitol siege, allegedly calling them a 'fraud' and a 'commie,' respectively." Where in the article should I put it? (Please note: I work for the ADL) OceanicFeeling123 (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

ADL

Text deleted by Graywalls: The Anti-Defamation League reports that according to Anglin, the purpose of The Daily Stormer is to educate men about the white nationalist movement, and he has banned women from producing content for his site or from joining his Stormer Book Clubs. Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Anti_Defamation_League_citation_advocacy Might be worth a discussion on whether due and verifiable in its own right, pending result of COI noticeboard discussion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

atualizem o endereço — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.181.142.31 (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

References

"Moslem" as term of abuse and style guide

Anglin is also unique among white supremacists for his obsessive and consistent use of "Moslem" as a deliberate term of abuse against Muslims, though apparently not covered extensively. For example, see: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/daily-stormer-nazi-style-guide_n_5a2ece19e4b0ce3b344492f2. This is often overlooked when writing about Anglin in the mainstream, even though it does form an important part of his overall ideology. An entire section on the "style guide" may be appropriate. The current section on "content and style" doesn't really go into these idiosyncracies and should probably be split into subsections for better readability. Laval (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

New URL for official Tor site

Since The Tor Project had to upgrade their onion service to version 3, The Daily Stormer in turn, has moved to a new address on Tor. This should probably be included in the article. Here is the new link:

http:// stormer5v52vjsw66jmds7ndeecudq444woadhzr2plxlaayexnh6eqd.onion/ 2601:8C:417E:26A0:2DB8:3A11:7D57:FA70 (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Update the url to the website

Hello,

It seems the dailystormer.su url is down, but a new one has been set up. It is

dailystormer.name as of February 2, 2022

This is an edit to be made. Just trying to keep the Wikipedia page informed :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeDenim (talk • contribs) 05:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia censorship of the Daily Stormer

URL template has been removed. --Donenne (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Why so? Shouldn't the link be clickable? 5.150.221.26 (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

After attempting to update the clearnet domain to dailystormer.name and the v3 Onion address (as mentioned above) on the article, both were flagged as being blacklisted. A request has been made to have them removed at Spam-Blacklist. --Bombuzal (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This is an article about a website to which one cannot post the correct link to the website. I think this is notable enough that it belongs in the article.

Mikedelsol (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Not only is the url censored on Wikipedia, attempts to mention its censorship in this article are themselves forbidden. -Mikedelsol (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

That would be because they are not referenced by reliable sources Dronebogus (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

As per above we need RS staying it is censorship. Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2022

The Daily Stormers URL as shown in Wikipedia is not working as of April 7th, 2022 192.34.130.140 (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It’s blacklisted as spam. Works as intended. Dronebogus (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"Andrew Anglin (American Journalist)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Andrew Anglin (American Journalist) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 25#Andrew Anglin (American Journalist) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Message board?

I don't know if DS used to be a message board, but if you go there now it's more like a blog than anything else. There's no message board, and it doesn't even appear to be possible to leave comments. The description in this article should probably be updated/corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.223.214.8 (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The blog used to allow comments and these were mirrored on thegoyimknow messageboard. There is still a message board but the url changed and comments are no longer visible on the blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:799:61D:7100:EC1B:C463:6900:E6B4 (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The "official" Daily Stormer message board is called Gamer Uprising [1]. The site, like the Stormer itself, is administered by Anglin's partner Weev. Laval (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

dailystormer.cn

Due to the 2022 Buffalo shooting, Anglin has lost dailystormer.cn. However, I have not found any reliable sources for this. It has been extensively discussed on Anglin's forum, Gamer Uprising. Laval (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Laval: U sure that that was all because of buffalo, cause .cn is owned by china. WyyzrdtheGreat (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)