Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:StoneToss

2024-10-30T01:01:41Z

193.28.84.20: /* Neo nazi */ Reply

{{Talk header}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice |ap}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice |blp}}
{{American English}}
{{GA|17:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)|topic=Social sciences and society|page=1|oldid=1252068126}}
{{Old XfD multi |
|date = August 5, 2021 |result = '''Delete''' |page = Stonetoss
|date2 = September 15, 2023 |result2 = '''Delete''' |page2 = Stonetoss (2nd nomination)
|date3 = March 21, 2024 |result3 = '''Keep''' |page3 = StoneToss (3rd nomination)
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=GA |blp=yes |listas=StoneToss |collapsed=Yes |1=
{{WikiProject Biography |a&e-work-group=yes |a&e-priority=low}}
{{WikiProject Webcomics |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Internet culture |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=Low |American=yes |American-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Discrimination |importance=low}}
}}
{{Backwards copy
| title = Who is Stonetoss? X is suspending people for identifying right-wing cartoonist
| year = 2024
| author = Davies, Rachael
| url = https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tech/who-stonetoss-cartoonist-elon-musk-suspend-x-twitter-accounts-b1146838.html
| org = [[Evening Standard]]
| monthday = March 21,
}}
{{Consensus|'''Current consensus (April 2024):'''
* There is a general sense that the alleged real name should not be added to the article considering available sources at this time (see [[Talk:StoneToss/Archive 1#Name|this discussion]]).
* In [[Special:PermanentLink/1216015718#RfC: first sentence|this RfC]] editors agreed that "neo-Nazi" should remain in the first sentence.
* In [[Special:PermanentLink/1219823195#RfC:_Exclusion_of_StoneToss's_website_from_the_article|this RfC]] it was found that there was consensus to include the link to StoneToss's website in the article.
* In [[Special:PermanentLink/1219823677#RfC:_Should_the_revelation_of_StoneToss's_identity_be_referred_to_as_doxxing?|this RfC]] there was no consensus found to refer to the revelation of StoneToss's identity as "doxxing".
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(90d)
| archive = Talk:StoneToss/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 2
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 3
}}

__TOC__

== Neo nazi ==

Lol seriously i know he is antisemitic but seriously [[Special:Contributions/86.114.207.170|86.114.207.170]] ([[User talk:86.114.207.170|talk]]) 20:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

:Yes – because sources predominately call him such. See [[#RfC: first sentence]]. — '''[[User:Czello|Czello]]''' ''([[User talk:Czello|music]])'' 20:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
::Exactly. We did actually two separate reviews of the reliable sources we could find on him and it was clear that the most neutral and accurate reflection of how to refer to Stonetoss was as a neo-Nazi. We measured twice on that one and then held an RFC because assigning such a label to a BLP is not something to do lightly. But, yeah, according to reliable sources, the guy's a neo-nazi. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
:::While I can agree there's sufficient evidence to include the term "neo-Nazi" in this article, I do feel the opening sentence could be rephrased a bit. As far as I'm aware, StoneToss hasn't exactly gone out of his way to define his views, so while his comics can be a reflection of his beliefs, given their "satirical" nature (whether or not you find them funny), it's hard to determine the extent to which he himself believes what he publishes. I think the term could better be applied to the comics themselves, since they are the source of the relevant viewpoints.
:::For example the introduction could instead read something like:
:::"StoneToss is a pseudonymous American political cartoonist who publishes a webcomic of the same name. The webcomic is often criticized for promoting neo-Nazi ideologies because its use of racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, and antisemitic views, including Holocaust denial, as part of its humor. [[User:V3513504|V3513504]] ([[User talk:V3513504|talk]]) 01:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
::::We had a RfC about this and determined that on the basis of reliable sources that he should be referred to directly as a neo-Nazi. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]]''[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 01:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
::::I would suggest reading the RfC on this topic. The article uses the specific phrasing "neo-Nazi political cartoonist" as a reflection of the available sources, the majority of which refer to StoneToss (the person, not the webcomic) as a "neo-Nazi cartoonist". [[User:Ethmostigmus|Ethmostigmus]] ([[User talk:Ethmostigmus|talk]]) 08:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::Should it not be evidenced by his work? I just went through his cartoons and I do not see anything neo nazis. It looks like editors are enganged in political war and are taking over narrative here. Shame for wikipedia. [[Special:Contributions/193.28.84.20|193.28.84.20]] ([[User talk:193.28.84.20|talk]]) 06:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yawn ''[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]]''[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 10:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::the whole neonazi labeling is basically what he makes fun of directly from his work, I believe we could state alleged "Neo Nazi" to compromise both sides as he on the news is called a neonazi despite the author having little to no neonazi affiliations [[User:BarakHussan|BarakHussan]] ([[User talk:BarakHussan|talk]]) 20:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::No. He's not an "alleged" neo-Nazi, he ''is'' a neo-Nazi. We don't need to "compromise" on facts. Facts are facts, we don't give equal consideration to people who deny them. [[User:Di (they-them)|Di (they-them)]] ([[User talk:Di (they-them)|talk]]) 00:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::You are currently alleging him to be one. News articles alleging stonetoss to be a neo-Nazi without any definitive proof aren't trustworthy either. Definitive proof is required for such an allegation to stick and be considered fact [[User:EveryoneIsNazi|EveryoneIsNazi]] ([[User talk:EveryoneIsNazi|talk]]) 08:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Incorrect. We say what reliable sources say. Simple as that. And no, that's not what fascism is. — '''[[User:Czello|Czello]]''' ''([[User talk:Czello|music]])'' 08:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'll first need to find these "reliable sources" you're talking about, since it seems like none of them have definitive proof. Definitive proof is required for an allegation to turn into established fact.
:::::::::::Who are these "we" you're talking about right now? [[User:EveryoneIsNazi|EveryoneIsNazi]] ([[User talk:EveryoneIsNazi|talk]]) 08:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::The reliable sources are in the article, even in the first line - they're not difficult to find.
::::::::::::"We" = Wikipedia. — '''[[User:Czello|Czello]]''' ''([[User talk:Czello|music]])'' 08:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::These "reliable sources" allege him to be a neo-Nazi without proof. Where is the proof? [[User:EveryoneIsNazi|EveryoneIsNazi]] ([[User talk:EveryoneIsNazi|talk]]) 08:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::You'll have to ask them that, but presumably they apply that label based on the views he promotes. — '''[[User:Czello|Czello]]''' ''([[User talk:Czello|music]])'' 08:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Thank you. [[User:EveryoneIsNazi|EveryoneIsNazi]] ([[User talk:EveryoneIsNazi|talk]]) 09:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::There is no requirement that we [[WP:SATISFY]] you. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]]''[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 09:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::ok [[User:EveryoneIsNazi|EveryoneIsNazi]] ([[User talk:EveryoneIsNazi|talk]]) 09:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The contention here isn't about disagreement as such, but rather the criticism, which any rational person can see, that Wikipedia is not in fact a neutral viewpoint and only feigns effort towards sticking to an unbiased factual basis.
:::::::::::::This is one of many obvious examples of where extreme labels and epithets are overtly thrown around with absolute assertion, in reaction to some level of wrongthink or perceived (as opposed to substantiation or even simple observation with logic) behaviour as politically incorrect, with the only excuse and claim to authority being a singular overtly leftist "news" site, which is all that is relied on to pass off as unanimous informative consensus. Shame. [[Special:Contributions/82.4.234.177|82.4.234.177]] ([[User talk:82.4.234.177|talk]]) 19:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Wikipedia is not neutral and it makes no pretense of being so. Wikipedia is biased in favor of facts that are backed up by reliable sources. We do not need to provide equal weight to "all sides" if one is inconsistent with reality. [[User:Di (they-them)|Di (they-them)]] ([[User talk:Di (they-them)|talk]]) 23:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Reliable sources that are not giving a proof? But we are relying on them because we called them 'reliable'. It does not have any sense.
:::::::::::::::Anyone who has working brain and can comprehend basic logic sees that 'neo nazi' label is political warfare here and is not related to any facts. It is extremely huge shame for Wikipedia that it is not only allowed but also defended. [[Special:Contributions/193.28.84.20|193.28.84.20]] ([[User talk:193.28.84.20|talk]]) 01:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::There's been an RFC on this. You can see the result at [[Special:PermaLink/1216015718#RfC:_first_sentence]]. As you can see there was a clear consensus to refer to StoneToss as a neo-Nazi. There is absolutely no need to compromise. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]]''[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 12:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::There is no consensus. The articles attached only provide empirical evidence. To add, keeping "anti-fascist groups" under the initial sentence alludes to these allegations. That is fair. [[Special:Contributions/49.184.177.55|49.184.177.55]] ([[User talk:49.184.177.55|talk]]) 07:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::There was a consensus at the link TarnishedPath just provided you. You might personally disagree with it, but it exists. — '''[[User:Czello|Czello]]''' ''([[User talk:Czello|music]])'' 08:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I fail to recognize how an underrepresented debate constitutes a consensus. [[User:Floristt|Floristt]] ([[User talk:Floristt|talk]]) 09:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I don't see how it was "underrepresented" as I count at least 11 editors taking part. The discussion was closed with a decision to include "neo-Nazi"; if you don't like that you'll have to challenge the existing consensus in a new discussion. As advice, though, I doubt you'll be successful. — '''[[User:Czello|Czello]]''' ''([[User talk:Czello|music]])'' 09:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It's really embarassing how eager you seem to be to throw your fascist censorship around. I can count at least five editor that are against the libel you're so strongly advocating for, and all for what? Purposedly slander a satirical comic author?
:::::::::::::Anti-semitism is not enough to be a neonazi [[Special:Contributions/2001:B07:6472:25A2:B129:9A89:FC5A:D369|2001:B07:6472:25A2:B129:9A89:FC5A:D369]] ([[User talk:2001:B07:6472:25A2:B129:9A89:FC5A:D369|talk]]) 13:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::What is being "censored", exactly? No censorship is taking place in this article. I also don't think you know what fascist means.
::::::::::::::If you don't agree with how the phrase "neo-Nazi" is applied, you'll have to take that up with the sources. We just reflect what they say. — '''[[User:Czello|Czello]]''' ''([[User talk:Czello|music]])'' 13:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Let's take a look at that five editors thing for a quick second.
::::::::::::::It's worth noting that of the registered editors that are leaning against the inclusion of his seemingly well sourced and well discussed status as a neo-nazi due to various reasons, of which there are 4 unless I've missed anyone, only one has edited anywhere else aside from this page on Wikipedia.
::::::::::::::The same goes for the IP users. Of all the IP editors (including yourself) only one of them has edited anything other than this page and even then there was only one edit elsewhere. Of course this could be due to any number of factors, but it's worth noting nonetheless.
::::::::::::::This of course does call into question whether, specifically for the registered editors aside from the one who has edited elsewhere, as to whether they were created solely to take part in this discussion, seeing as all of them began editing this page on the same day their accounts were created. [[User:CommissarDoggo|CommissarDoggo]]''[[User talk:CommissarDoggo|Talk?]]'' 13:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I can understand the issue, but as you said there may be other reasons - which, in my case, amount to not remembering my password and not wanting to go through the annoying process of recovery. Which you made me do anyway and I won't be thanking you for it. But let's not derail.
:::::::::::::::I do know pretty well what fascism is, and seizing media to weaponize them against your political rivals is exactly part of what fascism does. I am by no means a fan of the conspiration theories that Stonetoss spins, but labeling him as neo-nazi simply has no base. There are zero known connections between him and the Nazi party and zero known endorsment to their ideals. This much should be enough to make any neutral mind vote against calling him a neo-nazi.
:::::::::::::::I don't know why there are a handful of experienced Wikipedia editors here that seem hell-bent to encase a libel from left-aligned media as truth. Demeaning your rival is acceptable in politics, but shouldn't Wikipedia be above this level of pettiness? [[User:Alves Stargazer|Alves Stargazer]] ([[User talk:Alves Stargazer|talk]]) 18:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::[[WP:AGF]]. This isn't some liberal agenda, and you need to stop thinking that we're doing things because Stonetoss is a "rival". We call him what the sources call him, simple as that. — '''[[User:Czello|Czello]]''' ''([[User talk:Czello|music]])'' 07:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::Can I therefore edit Kamala Harris' profile to call her "incompetent DEI hire" and shield my behaviour behind "that's how some radical sources define her" and [[WP:AGF]]? Surely not.
:::::::::::::::::Good faith would be writing that he's a cartoonist and, a few lines down, mention that he has been defined neo-nazi by some sources, which is how a neutral point of view is expressed. But this article opens with "he's a neo-nazi cartoonist" despite no evidence of him being one- there's just a couple of politically aligned newspapers defining him one. If he's ever caught marching in a KKK rally I'll stand with you. [[User:Alves Stargazer|Alves Stargazer]] ([[User talk:Alves Stargazer|talk]]) 12:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::You keep saying "radical sources", but WaPo isn't radical. It's been determined to be a reliable source. If you disagree, take it up at [[WP:RSN]].
::::::::::::::::::Also when sources describe him as being a neo-Nazi, we are able to say that in Wikivoice without saying "he has been described as such". There aren't sources I can see that are disputing the label. — '''[[User:Czello|Czello]]''' ''([[User talk:Czello|music]])'' 20:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::No. As per [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]], you can not simply throw insults to authors taking their detractors as reliable source, especially since he has a strong political alignment. It would be like calling Biden an election-stealer because the whole right-wing press depicted him as one.
::Wired and the Washington Post are notoriously left-leaning media and especially Wired has an incredibly radical bias. Gnet itself, while decently reliable, only publishes articles bashing right-winged groups or perceived so. There is no single element of neutrality in this article, to the point I must ask for it to be rewritten properly. [[Special:Contributions/2001:B07:6472:25A2:B129:9A89:FC5A:D369|2001:B07:6472:25A2:B129:9A89:FC5A:D369]] ([[User talk:2001:B07:6472:25A2:B129:9A89:FC5A:D369|talk]]) 13:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Trying to call Washington Post left leaning is hilarious. Please stop. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]]''[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 13:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Oh, it was analyzed as such. check the source yourself: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/fact-checker-washington-post-media-bias
::::The fact you don't consider it left-leaning only means that your bias is of that a radical leftist. [[Special:Contributions/2001:B07:6472:25A2:B129:9A89:FC5A:D369|2001:B07:6472:25A2:B129:9A89:FC5A:D369]] ([[User talk:2001:B07:6472:25A2:B129:9A89:FC5A:D369|talk]]) 13:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Not a [[WP:GREL]] source. See [[WP:ALLSIDES]]. Don't you have better things to do? ''[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]]''[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 13:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Don't you? Is your curriculum really gonna be "I want to trample any shard of integrity this platform has so that I can stick it to that author I really hate?"
::::::Allsides is also used and referenced in Harvard social sciences, hearing an handful of extremists calling it unreliable is hilarious.
::::::But sure, let's do your game. Here's the article on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post, clearly stating that in 1970 was seen as left-winger, that during the 2007 elections they mostly sided with Obama and that in most US elections they endorsed Democrats. As I said, it's left-sided. [[User:Alves Stargazer|Alves Stargazer]] ([[User talk:Alves Stargazer|talk]]) 18:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Trying to argue that a publication is left-leaning because they sided with a president that increased overseas conflict is beyond inane. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]]''[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 02:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Is this your original research on the topic or do you have a source for it? [[User:Alves Stargazer|Alves Stargazer]] ([[User talk:Alves Stargazer|talk]]) 12:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Ultimately the Washington Post is considered reliable per [[WP:WAPO]]. Sources are not required to be neutral themselves to be reliable. — '''[[User:Czello|Czello]]''' ''([[User talk:Czello|music]])'' 07:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Indeed they are not, but when every linked sources is biased leftward it's enough to say it's not a [[npov]], which would be mandatory in case of [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]] [[User:Alves Stargazer|Alves Stargazer]] ([[User talk:Alves Stargazer|talk]]) 12:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::If you think WAPO are not reliable the best place to take that discussion is [[WP:RS/N]]. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]]''[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 23:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:Lock this thread now. We're not debating this shit. [[User:Turtletennisfogwheat|Turtletennisfogwheat]] ([[User talk:Turtletennisfogwheat|talk]]) 12:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Turtletennisfogwheat|Turtletennisfogwheat]] I was considering just that a few hours ago, but it struck me that I am involved and I was hoping that someone who wasn't would close it. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]]''[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 12:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

== Issues with the article ==

There are a lot of weak sources. I've just removed what appears to be a link to a Russian blog. There isn't a community consensus on if the Daily Dot is reliable, but they are considered less reliable on politics. The Boing Boing piece (a weak source already) and LGBTQ Nation are quoting "Know Your Meme". A section discussing the political nature of a webcomic quotes the SPLC and then "Matt Binder of Mashable". An article on a contentious topic like this should use strong sources.

More concerningly, we don't disclose his alleged name for BLP reasons, but every linked article does, and they don't seem reliable for the topic. I.e., The Advocate's title is "Elon Musk’s X bans transgender Harvard lawyer for naming a neo-Nazi" but qualifies that in the body with "was allegedly unmasked to be." Are there no neutral news organisations writing on this? [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]]) 05:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

:@[[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]]: I would like to discuss each disputed source separately. What to you appears to be a Russian blog—[[:ru:Тинькофф Журнал]]—can not accurately be generalized as a blog. The cited article which you removed specifically is not [[WP:SPS]] or [[WP:UGC]]. The outlet has editorial oversight according to certain rules including the rule that articles must not include false information (https://journal.tinkoff.ru/community-rules/). Please see https://journal.tinkoff.ru/about/ for how articles undergo editorial oversight. Sergey Antonov is the editor-in-chief. The author is internet journalist Daria Leizarenko who was formerly an editor at [[:ru:TJ]] (see https://tjournal.ru/post/519733), and for a brief period also its editor-in-chief ([https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%86%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BA-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%89%D0%B0%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%81%D1%8F-%D1%81-tjournal-%D0%B2%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5-%D1%81-%D0%B4%D0%B2%D1%83%D0%BC%D1%8F-%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE/id1605139620?i=1000579578690 link]; see also [https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2022/08/22/russian-media-outlet-tjournal-to-shut-down-starting-10-september-news this] for context). TJ was an internet outlet which also had editorial control and is frequently cited on the Russian Wikipedia which has an "authoritative sources" guideline which is generally compatible with our [[WP:RS]]. So the author is an internet media professional and she published her article under editorial oversight. Therefore, that specific article is a reliable source. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 20:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks for clearing this up in a detailed response. [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]]) 20:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:::You're welcome. I immediately, prior to seeing your reply, also went to [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Tinkoff Journal]] to get some input there because I was also interested in what other editors might say about this. I will also comment on the other sources you've mentioned in the coming days. I am on a vacation and can't edit much in the next week or so. Sincerely —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 21:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

{{Talk:StoneToss/GA1}}

==Did you know nomination==
{{Template:Did you know nominations/StoneToss}}

Talk:Red lines in the Russo-Ukrainian War

2024-10-01T18:27:11Z

193.28.84.20:

{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=Start|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|European-task-force=y|Russian-task-force=y|Post-Cold-War-task-force=y|b1=no|b2=no|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=no}}
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=|mil=yes|pol=y}}
{{WikiProject Ukraine|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Countries}}
}}
{{old move|date=18 August 2023|from=Red Lines in the Russo-Ukrainian War|destination=Red lines in the Russo-Ukrainian War|result=moved|link=Special:Permalink/1172135333#Requested move 18 August 2023}}

== Are those Russia's redlines or newspapers redlines? ==

Are those Russia's redlines or newspapers redlines?
I am under impression that those red lines are imagined mostly by newspapers, not draw by Russia.
If my impression is correct it has two bad consequences

* The articles is not 'encyclopedia article' but war propaganda done by side of the conflict
* Even if we would accept fact that Wikipedia stops being encyclopedia, then convincing people that we are crossing redlines makes a very dangerous situation. When one side make a true red line then this article will make easier for politicians to convince people that crossing such red line is something normal.

==Original research==
I've just re-assessed this article as Start-class and tagged it as it contains [[WP:OR|original research]]. The claims about Storm Shaddow missiles are not supported by the source, and other material seems similar. I'd suggest focusing on analytic articles as sources rather than news stories. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 02:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
: Thanks for the comments - I've added a number of extra citations and a new section regarding 3rd party countries and I will keep looking out for analytic articles.[[User:Ânes-pur-sàng|Ânes-pur-sàng]] ([[User talk:Ânes-pur-sàng|talk]]) 09:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

== Requested move 18 August 2023 ==

<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. '''Please do not modify it.''' Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''

The result of the move request was: '''moved.''' ([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Closure by a page mover|closed by non-admin page mover]]) – [[User talk:MaterialWorks|Material]][[Special:Contributions/MaterialWorks|Works]] 19:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
----

[[:Red Lines in the Russo-Ukrainian War]] → {{no redirect|Red lines in the Russo-Ukrainian War}} – lowercase “red lines,” which is not a proper noun.  —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 19:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

: This is about "Red Line" as a boundary line, I know it is not physical, but a "Red Line" is an object whereas a "red line" is part of a drawing with a crayon..... [[User:Ânes-pur-sàng|Ânes-pur-sàng]] ([[User talk:Ânes-pur-sàng|talk]]) 15:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::Can you provide evidence that that might be true? G.B. Ngram shows that the capitalized version is very little used in reliable sources.[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=red+lines%2CRed+Lines&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3]  —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 15:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Searches for some recent examples in books seem to indicate lowercase is used.[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Obama%E2%80%99s+red+lines%22+OR%C2%A0%22Obama%E2%80%99s+red+line%22&lr=lang_en&sca_esv=558407982&tbs=lr%3Alang_1en&tbm=bks&sxsrf=AB5stBghal8N1MRyxqhJoJRWkskv_7CZOQ%3A1692465466154&ei=OvngZNGNCYGa0PEP1qyIsA8&ved=0ahUKEwjRkp6XnemAAxUBDTQIHVYWAvYQ4dUDCAg&uact=5&oq=%22Obama%E2%80%99s+red+lines%22+OR%C2%A0%22Obama%E2%80%99s+red+line%22&gs_lp=Eg1nd3Mtd2l6LWJvb2tzIi4iT2JhbWHigJlzIHJlZCBsaW5lcyIgT1LCoCJPYmFtYeKAmXMgcmVkIGxpbmUiSLkoUNgRWNwkcAB4AJABAJgBf6AB-gWqAQMyLjW4AQPIAQD4AQH4AQKIBgE&sclient=gws-wiz-books][https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Putin%27s+red+lines%22+OR%C2%A0%22Putin%27s+red+line%22&lr=lang_en&sca_esv=558407982&tbs=lr%3Alang_1en&tbm=bks&sxsrf=AB5stBjzihvHoZRHJDGUWQMzBCL5kl-spA%3A1692465494029&ei=VvngZLm1Afvh0PEP5t2W-AI&ved=0ahUKEwi5uMOknemAAxX7MDQIHeauBS8Q4dUDCAg&uact=5&oq=%22Putin%27s+red+lines%22+OR%C2%A0%22Putin%27s+red+line%22&gs_lp=Eg1nd3Mtd2l6LWJvb2tzIioiUHV0aW4ncyByZWQgbGluZXMiIE9SwqAiUHV0aW4ncyByZWQgbGluZSJIuxpQAFjdFXAAeACQAQCYAXWgAYsFqgEDMS41uAEDyAEA-AEB-AECiAYB&sclient=gws-wiz-books]  —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 17:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::And a [[red line]] is not an object at all, but an abstract concept expressed figuratively. It is not even a boundary on a map, but a limit in behaviour that triggers a response if exceeded.  —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 16:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
:Agree, [[Red line (phrase)]] which is linked in the page itself does not capitalize the L in the title. [[User:Exobiotic|'''Exobiotic''']] [[User talk:Exobiotic|💬]] [[Special:Contributions/Exobiotic|✒️]] 20:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::'Red Line' makes sense to define it as a specific noun or phenomena, but it is simply not actually used and as stated, is not used even in Wikipedia's own example so it should likely be changed to lowercase. [[User:Samus Rox|Samus Rox]] ([[User talk:Samus Rox|talk]]) 17:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
:'''Speedy move''' per nom. No reason why it should be capitalized. [[User:HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith|HappyWith]] ([[User talk:HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith|talk]]) 05:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">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.</div>
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>
== Arrest Warrants a "Western Consequence"? ==

Labeling the abductions as a "Western Red Line" with the consequence being that the ICC issued arrest warrants, depending on how you look at it, seems like it is either tangential or it is a statement that the ICC exists as a Western tool for NATO diplomatic ends, or that it is being used as such by NATO. I may be missing some context or relevant information. But regardless, this framing of both the abductions and the actions of an international body that exists ostensibly by virtue of over 100 member states of the Rome statute for the purpose of prosecuting things like war crimes and crimes against humanity, as being a mechanism for upholding NATO specific geopolitical agendas seems very poor at best.

Am I the only one who thought this was strange? [[User:Goldscurvy|Goldscurvy]] ([[User talk:Goldscurvy|talk]]) 14:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

: The abducting children crossed a red line in may countries opinions .... it has nothing to do with NATO.... many countries signed up to the ICC, including Russia. The ICC simply sees this as a crime, that is why they can issue an arrest warrant. [[User:Ânes-pur-sàng|Ânes-pur-sàng]] ([[User talk:Ânes-pur-sàng|talk]]) 15:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::[[User:Ânes-pur-sàng|@Ânes-pur-sàng]] Sure, but the item is listed in a table labeled "Western Red Lines". That's why I am mentioning it in connection to NATO. In this context, "The West" is pretty much synonymous with NATO, which is tacitly acknowledged by the article in its usage of the words.
::The questionable thing to me is specifically where this item is being listed and whether it is relevant and clear. [[User:Goldscurvy|Goldscurvy]] ([[User talk:Goldscurvy|talk]]) 12:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:The cited source[https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/arrest-warrant-may-signal-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-putin-20230319-p5ctbw.html] seems to imply that the crime crosses a legal and moral red line that turns a dictator into a fugitive war criminal and his régime into an international pariah. (I would go further and say that his publicly confessing to committing one of the potentially genocidal acts—against children—in the Genocide Convention, while publicly inciting genocide, crossed red lines of humanity, and red lines of a court investigation whose mandate includes genocide.)
:But I don’t think it means to say that this was a red line that was explicitly set by Western states saying “Russia, don’t kidnap Ukrainian children, or else.”
:Not sure if that means it should be included here or not  —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 23:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
::[[User:Mzajac|@Mzajac]] That does make significantly more sense. Although "red lines of humanity", and "red lines of the International Criminal Court" are both distinct from each other, and each are individually distinct from a "Western Red Line". A "Western Red Line" is more political and diplomatic in nature, while the ICC red line (ideally) carries stronger legal connotations which exist independently of any specific geopolitical or diplomatic agenda of any Western country, and technically independent of any direct control by any Western country.
::Which would make inclusion fairly misleading, at best. [[User:Goldscurvy|Goldscurvy]] ([[User talk:Goldscurvy|talk]]) 12:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Well, arguably all three of the above categories are the red lines of international law and the post-WWII order, intended to serve as a check on rogue, criminal régimes that would defy it and undo it.  —''[[user:Mzajac|Michael]] [[user_talk:Mzajac|Z]].'' 12:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

== Unprofessional Reading ==

This page is full of paragraphs that are really unprofessionally written. To begin with, when referring to figures, even if you have no respect for them, we should still at the very least refer to them by their full name. Preferably we also mention their position. Furthermore, when refering to states we should refer to them by their proper name. Stating "China said X" may lead to confussion over which China. Furthermore, we should mention if it was an official government statement or said by someone in a speech.

[[User:Varjagen|Varjagen]] ([[User talk:Varjagen|talk]]) 12:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

:I also forgot to mention that the use of "the west" should be limited as is it an undefined vague geopolitical block. Preferably we should instead mention the specific statements or organisations that back the mention up. [[User:Varjagen|Varjagen]] ([[User talk:Varjagen|talk]]) 12:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

== Alleged vs real consequences ==

The Consequences column in the table contains a mix of Putin's claims (presented as reality) and things that happened around that time, but not proven to be consequences.

For example, it's Putin who claims that war in Ukraine is a consequence NATO not being withdrawn to 1997 position. It's an allegation, a claim. We don't know if it's a real consequence. Another example, "New targets hit by Russian missiles" after supply of long-range missiles to Ukraine. Well, new targets were being hit before the red line was broken, and after. We don't know if this really was a consequence, or just a continuation of the war efforts.

Also there's various comments (some are not marked as comments like "Supplied MiG's will be destroyed"). Given that comments are non-material, they probably shouldn't be in the Consequences column? [[User:YouAreNotYourThoughts|YouAreNotYourThoughts]] ([[User talk:YouAreNotYourThoughts|talk]]) 19:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

== Febuary First 2024 attack of Crimea with Scalp and Storm Shadow Missiles ==

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/feb/01/russia-ukraine-war-live-latest-news-updates

This would lead one to believe that at least Crimea was attacked by western made, nato rockest. As the Storm Shadow is UK, and Scalp is French.

Of course I am not sure, in what sense Russia meant Crimea is its own territory, maybe this is just noise to shift this red line in the near future. [[User:Kvothe356|Kvothe356]] ([[User talk:Kvothe356|talk]]) 11:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

== New article ==

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-red-lines-united-states-long-range-missiles-ukraine-1948786 ꧁[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]꧂ 14:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:StoneToss

2024-08-12T06:51:24Z

193.28.84.20: /* Neo nazi */ Reply

{{GA nominee|15:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)|nominator=—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]]|page=1|subtopic=Culture, sociology and psychology|status=|note=|shortdesc=American neo-Nazi cartoonist}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|protection=ecp|ap|placed-date=4 May 2024}}
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|protection=ecp|blp|placed-date=4 May 2024}}
{{censor}}
{{Backwards copy
| title = Who is Stonetoss? X is suspending people for identifying right-wing cartoonist
| year = 2024
| author = Davies, Rachael
| url = https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tech/who-stonetoss-cartoonist-elon-musk-suspend-x-twitter-accounts-b1146838.html
| org = [[Evening Standard]]
| monthday = March 21,
}}
{{Consensus|'''Current consensus (April 2024):'''
* There is a general sense that the alleged real name should not be added to the article considering available sources at this time (see [[Talk:StoneToss/Archive 1#Name|this discussion]]).
* In [[Special:PermanentLink/1216015718#RfC: first sentence|this RfC]] editors agreed that "neo-Nazi" should remain in the first sentence.
* In [[Special:PermanentLink/1219823195#RfC:_Exclusion_of_StoneToss's_website_from_the_article|this RfC]] it was found that there was consensus to include the link to StoneToss's website in the article.
* In [[Special:PermanentLink/1219823677#RfC:_Should_the_revelation_of_StoneToss's_identity_be_referred_to_as_doxxing?|this RfC]] there was no consensus found to refer to the revelation of StoneToss's identity as "doxxing".
}}
{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes|
{{American English}}
{{Old XfD multi
|date = August 5, 2021 |result = '''Delete''' |page = Stonetoss
|date2 = September 15, 2023 |result2 = '''Delete''' |page2 = Stonetoss (2nd nomination)
|date3 = March 21, 2024 |result3 = '''Keep''' |page3 = StoneToss (3rd nomination)
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B |blp=yes |listas=StoneToss |collapsed=Yes |1=
{{WikiProject Biography |a&e-work-group=yes |a&e-priority=low}}
{{WikiProject Webcomics |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Internet culture |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=Low |American=yes |American-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Discrimination |importance=low}}
}}
{{Annual readership}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(120d)
| archive = Talk:StoneToss/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 2
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}}

__TOC__

== His name ==

His name is public knowledge and should be posted. [[Special:Contributions/2601:646:8084:B650:BCDE:D8C3:CBAD:E13F|2601:646:8084:B650:BCDE:D8C3:CBAD:E13F]] ([[User talk:2601:646:8084:B650:BCDE:D8C3:CBAD:E13F|talk]]) 02:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

:Source? [[User:LegalSmeagolian|LegalSmeagolian]] ([[User talk:LegalSmeagolian|talk]]) 03:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
:Please refer to [[Talk:StoneToss/Archive 1#Name]] where this was discussed. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]]''[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 04:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
::The gist is that we need reliable sources that say "this is his name" rather than "this is alleged to be his name". [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Let’s just change the title of the article from “StoneToss” to “Hans Kristian Graebener” now that we know he’s behind StoneToss. Why are we being all Secret Squirrel about literal Nazis?[[Special:Contributions/69.126.152.175|69.126.152.175]] ([[User talk:69.126.152.175|talk]]) 15:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

:As I understand it, it's not fully confirmed what his name is - but at any rate, [[WP:COMMONNAME]] applies, and his common name is StoneToss. — '''[[User:Czello|Czello]]''' ''([[User talk:Czello|music]])'' 15:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
::Isn’t it a bit different when the person is a literal Nazi hiding behind a pseudonym? [[Special:Contributions/69.126.152.175|69.126.152.175]] ([[User talk:69.126.152.175|talk]]) 16:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
:::No, that wouldn't be [[WP:NEUTRAL]]. We normally always use the name they are most commonly known by; and again, I don't believe it's proven that the name above is his. — '''[[User:Czello|Czello]]''' ''([[User talk:Czello|music]])'' 16:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Not different at all. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 22:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
::I wanted to note that common name refers specifically to ''article titles'', not the name used within an article, and the reasoning used in common name is reasoning specifically about article titles. [[User:Googleguy007|Googleguy007]] ([[User talk:Googleguy007|talk]]) 00:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

:It '''is''' absurd to exclude the name Hans Kristian Graebener from the article, given that his identity has been widely reported now. This is like if we refused on include the name Chaya Raichik from the [[Libs of TikTok]] article. Regardless of the means by which the name was originally exposed, it's out there now and widely reported. As for "not fully confirmed"? StoneToss's own actions (going to Elon Musk and getting him to prohibit mention of the name on Twitter, with a new rule prohibiting the exposure of real names) are pretty strong confirmation, I'd say. After all, if it's ''not'' actually his real name, then the rule Elon implemented on his behalf wouldn't make any sense. — [[User:Redxiv|Red XIV]] ([[User talk:Redxiv|talk]]) 19:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Redxiv|Redxiv]] unfortunately, making that inference would be [[WP:SYNTH]] and should be avoided. We need, honestly, more than one reliable source to validate that he is behind the pseudonym, regardless of how likely it might be. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 20:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
::Per Simonm223, your inferring that it must be his real name because he went to Elon doesn't cut it when it comes to adding material to Wikipedia articles. Please refer to [[WP:NOR]] and more specifically [[WP:SYNTH]]. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]]''[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 23:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
::That's not how this works. The sources used in the article make it quite clear that this is an unconfirmed allegation:
::*"NBC News '''has not confirmed the identity''' of the person behind Stonetoss [...] hundreds of X users were posting the '''alleged''' name of Stonetoss this week"[https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/elon-musk-x-bans-revealing-names-anonymous-users-cartoon-rcna144486]
::*"The Daily Dot is declining to name the individual cited as StoneToss as the reporting '''has not been independently verified'''"[https://www.dailydot.com/debug/stonetoss-comics-identity-doxxed/]
::*"According to Anonymous Comrades Collective, the group was able to tie numerous old online accounts, audio livestreams, and GamerGate-era photographs to StoneToss and his '''alleged''' real-life identity as a Texas-based IT consultant [...] StoneToss was started in 2017 by an anonymous individual, '''allegedly''' Graebener"[https://mashable.com/article/elon-musk-x-twitter-suspending-users-posting-stonetoss-name]
::*"X has locked and suspended the accounts of journalists and researchers who shared the '''alleged''' identity of a neo-Nazi cartoonist known as Stonetoss"[https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-x-blocked-journalists-researchers-neo-nazi-cartoonist/]
::In the absence of reliable sources confirming and widely reporting his identity, including this name in the article would fall foul of [[WP:BLPPRIVACY]] and [[WP:NOR]]. The fact that Twitter policy changed in response to this debacle is not adequate evidence and clearly constitutes original research. StoneToss (and the person alleged to be him) would likely also be considered [[WP:LPI|low-profile individuals]] in this context, so [[WP:NPF]] probably applies: "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care". [[User:Ethmostigmus|Ethmostigmus]] ([[User talk:Ethmostigmus|talk]]) 07:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

== Neo nazi ==

Lol seriously i know he is antisemitic but seriously [[Special:Contributions/86.114.207.170|86.114.207.170]] ([[User talk:86.114.207.170|talk]]) 20:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

:Yes – because sources predominately call him such. See [[#RfC: first sentence]]. — '''[[User:Czello|Czello]]''' ''([[User talk:Czello|music]])'' 20:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
::Exactly. We did actually two separate reviews of the reliable sources we could find on him and it was clear that the most neutral and accurate reflection of how to refer to Stonetoss was as a neo-Nazi. We measured twice on that one and then held an RFC because assigning such a label to a BLP is not something to do lightly. But, yeah, according to reliable sources, the guy's a neo-nazi. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
:::While I can agree there's sufficient evidence to include the term "neo-Nazi" in this article, I do feel the opening sentence could be rephrased a bit. As far as I'm aware, StoneToss hasn't exactly gone out of his way to define his views, so while his comics can be a reflection of his beliefs, given their "satirical" nature (whether or not you find them funny), it's hard to determine the extent to which he himself believes what he publishes. I think the term could better be applied to the comics themselves, since they are the source of the relevant viewpoints.
:::For example the introduction could instead read something like:
:::"StoneToss is a pseudonymous American political cartoonist who publishes a webcomic of the same name. The webcomic is often criticized for promoting neo-Nazi ideologies because its use of racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, and antisemitic views, including Holocaust denial, as part of its humor. [[User:V3513504|V3513504]] ([[User talk:V3513504|talk]]) 01:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
::::We had a RfC about this and determined that on the basis of reliable sources that he should be referred to directly as a neo-Nazi. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]]''[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 01:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::Biased people who let their personal views influence editing is one of the reasons Wikipedia is losing relevance. Keep up the echo chamber building. [[Special:Contributions/2604:3D08:9A77:1B00:7240:2A49:755B:7741|2604:3D08:9A77:1B00:7240:2A49:755B:7741]] ([[User talk:2604:3D08:9A77:1B00:7240:2A49:755B:7741|talk]]) 05:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
::::I would suggest reading the RfC on this topic. The article uses the specific phrasing "neo-Nazi political cartoonist" as a reflection of the available sources, the majority of which refer to StoneToss (the person, not the webcomic) as a "neo-Nazi cartoonist". [[User:Ethmostigmus|Ethmostigmus]] ([[User talk:Ethmostigmus|talk]]) 08:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::Should it not be evidenced by his work? I just went through his cartoons and I do not see anything neo nazis. It looks like editors are enganged in political war and are taking over narrative here. Shame for wikipedia. [[Special:Contributions/193.28.84.20|193.28.84.20]] ([[User talk:193.28.84.20|talk]]) 06:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

== "what the author claims is 'edgy humor'" ==

But later in the article somebody else (Hart) is quoted as saying that the cartoons rely on "edgy humor". So the scare quotes here are not necessary. We could just say it ''is'' edgy humor. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:4CAA:BCDD:9F67:12FA|2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:4CAA:BCDD:9F67:12FA]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:4CAA:BCDD:9F67:12FA|talk]]) 08:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

:In all the sources where the term "edgy humor" appears, it does so within quotation marks. So no couldn't just say it, because a} reliable sources don't and b) it's not correct. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]]''[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 08:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
::I have updated the body to more closely reflect the sentence in source. [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 09:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks. Going further: We don't have a source attributing to Stonetoss a statement such as "my cartoons rely on edgy humor", and that's the claim made in the lead (X, being Stonetoss, said Y), but the claim isn't supported. The body claim is supported: Hart says "edgy humor" is involved, as part of her independent critique. The body has it right and the lead has it wrong. Still not in sync and needs more work. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 09:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Hmm. "Creator says" would have to rely on the ''Daily Dot'' article (3rd ref). Not sure what the ''Wired'' article verifies. [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 09:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::I missed that part of the ''Daily Dot'' article. By the way, this is the edit that introduced the current language: [[Special:Diff/1215674093]]. Edit: Wired verifies "simple and colorful imagery".—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 09:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::So right now we are effectively saying that StoneToss said that he uses "edgy humor" and that he did so using the exact words "edgy humor", but this is not true. StoneToss did not say that he uses "edgy humor", the "antifa redditor" CriticalResist8 did. The ''Daily Dot'' article summed up the following excerpts of a reddit post:<blockquote>"It’s not mild conservatism, it’s exactly the kind of shit we saw in Nazi Germany building up before they started deporting everyone,” CriticalResist8 continues. “To be clear: if you consider yourself right-wing, either centre-right, or classical liberal, or libertarian or whatever, you have to distance yourself from the fascists who purposely try to make themselves look moderately right with '''edgy humor'''."</blockquote>as<blockquote>According to these antifa redditors, the Stonetoss comics are much more sinister than the '''“edgy humor”''' their creator says they are.</blockquote>{{pb}}and when making his editorialization the Daily Dot writer made it look that StoneToss said something to the effect of "I use edgy humor", but that is an insertion by the journalist.{{pb}}Still, StoneToss is indeed using "edgy humor", according to Hart. But he did not say something to that effect. His work is critiqued, by the antifa redditor and by Hart as relying on edgy humor to package odious tropes.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 10:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::Hart also got "edgy humor" from the same reddit post by CriticalResist8 (relevant text in her article links to it) which is why she put it in quotation marks. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 10:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Both the ''Daily Dot'' writer and Hart sum up the same reddit post. Hart, being a more capable critic (Ph.D., expert) than the [[WP:DAILYDOT]] writer, sums up the reddit correctly, whereas the latter overeditorializes and uses language imprecisely so as to make it seem that Stonetoss used the exact language "edgy humor". (In reality, it is of course more likely than not that Stonetoss did refer to himself sometime someplace as "edgy"; it's statistically much less likely that he used the exact words "edgy humor"). —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 10:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I say just remove it. We shouldn't be saying a neo-Nazi holocaust denial comic is humorous without several extremely reliable sources (which we don't seem to have), and we shouldn't be quoting from a reddit user (or quoting from sources that quote a single reddit user). [[User:Elspea756|Elspea756]] ([[User talk:Elspea756|talk]]) 11:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I was thinking the same. Removed. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 12:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Probably the best. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]]''[[User talk:TarnishedPath|talk]] 00:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Concur. Let's just cut the supposed humour statement. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::This part is good and shouldn't be removed: [[Special:Diff/1224958931]] ("Hart wrote that, while internet users on the left have been trying to [[Appropriation (art)|appropriate]] the cartoons, adding "layers of irony", the subversion of their message is not easily understood by most.") —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 14:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Agree with [[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]], removing the "edgy humor" part is a good call, but I think the bit about whether attempts to "reclaim" StoneToss comics truly subvert the source material is definitely worth keeping. [[User:Ethmostigmus|Ethmostigmus]] ([[User talk:Ethmostigmus|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Ethmostigmus|contribs]]) 04:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::It's fine. Mine was just a first sketch anyway. No concerns with this refinement. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 12:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

== Issues with the article ==

There are a lot of weak sources. I've just removed what appears to be a link to a Russian blog. There isn't a community consensus on if the Daily Dot is reliable, but they are considered less reliable on politics. The Boing Boing piece (a weak source already) and LGBTQ Nation are quoting "Know Your Meme". A section discussing the political nature of a webcomic quotes the SPLC and then "Matt Binder of Mashable". An article on a contentious topic like this should use strong sources.

More concerningly, we don't disclose his alleged name for BLP reasons, but every linked article does, and they don't seem reliable for the topic. I.e., The Advocate's title is "Elon Musk’s X bans transgender Harvard lawyer for naming a neo-Nazi" but qualifies that in the body with "was allegedly unmasked to be." Are there no neutral news organisations writing on this? [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]]) 05:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

:@[[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]]: I would like to discuss each disputed source separately. What to you appears to be a Russian blog—[[:ru:Тинькофф Журнал]]—can not accurately be generalized as a blog. The cited article which you removed specifically is not [[WP:SPS]] or [[WP:UGC]]. The outlet has editorial oversight according to certain rules including the rule that articles must not include false information (https://journal.tinkoff.ru/community-rules/). Please see https://journal.tinkoff.ru/about/ for how articles undergo editorial oversight. Sergey Antonov is the editor-in-chief. The author is internet journalist Daria Leizarenko who was formerly an editor at [[:ru:TJ]] (see https://tjournal.ru/post/519733), and for a brief period also its editor-in-chief ([https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%86%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BA-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%89%D0%B0%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%81%D1%8F-%D1%81-tjournal-%D0%B2%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5-%D1%81-%D0%B4%D0%B2%D1%83%D0%BC%D1%8F-%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%BE/id1605139620?i=1000579578690 link]; see also [https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2022/08/22/russian-media-outlet-tjournal-to-shut-down-starting-10-september-news this] for context). TJ was an internet outlet which also had editorial control and is frequently cited on the Russian Wikipedia which has an "authoritative sources" guideline which is generally compatible with our [[WP:RS]]. So the author is an internet media professional and she published her article under editorial oversight. Therefore, that specific article is a reliable source. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 20:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks for clearing this up in a detailed response. [[User:Rollinginhisgrave|Rollinginhisgrave]] ([[User talk:Rollinginhisgrave|talk]]) 20:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
:::You're welcome. I immediately, prior to seeing your reply, also went to [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Tinkoff Journal]] to get some input there because I was also interested in what other editors might say about this. I will also comment on the other sources you've mentioned in the coming days. I am on a vacation and can't edit much in the next week or so. Sincerely —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 21:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)