Talk:StoneToss

Reliability of sources

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.

---

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)

While I don't have the patience to go through the sources myself, I do want to point out that WIRED and WaPo aren't the only sources the article uses to support the claims that Stonetoss is a neo-Nazi; Just look at the second paragraph of the Overview section. ThrowawayEpic1000 (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

That may be so, but it does not excuse that these four sources do not stand up to scrutiny as backing for this one sentence. I had a quick look at those other sources, and they are "Social Justice" activists, activist publications ("speaks truth to power to build a more just society"), or publications about such activists. So neutrality is pretty much entirely out the window in the Overview section also. Mostly the same sources, even, used very heavily. So the recommendation stands: Either find good sources that back the allegation, or reword, perhaps even scrap the sentence. Not what activist editors want, but it is what wikipedia standards demand. Bob Jed (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

You know I really don't understand anybody is put out that Wikipedia accurately describes a nazi cartoonist as a nazi cartoonist on the basis of multiple sources that call him a nazi. Simonm223 (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you using the word "activist" to refer to the experts at the Global Network on Extremism and Technology simply because you disagree with them? There are few better sources on who is and is not a neo/crypto-Nazi than actual researchers in the field of internet extremism, and their expert opinion cannot be dismissed so easily. Casting outlets like The Washington Post, Wired, and Ars Technica as "activist publications" is just ridiculous. If you know of any reliable sources that dispute the neo-Nazi label being applied to StoneToss, I would love to see it. Until then, there is clear consensus among reliable sources that StoneToss is an antisemitic neo-Nazi cartoonist, and this article should reflect that regardless of any editors personal opinions on the matter. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 01:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Source 5, doesn’t really cover the fact that he’s a Nazi and is only there to pad an allegation to someone who isn’t looking at the substance of sources 216.68.142.26 (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Source 5 literally calls him the crypto-Nazi cartoonist Stonetoss. Simonm223 (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2025 (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.

Doxin is illegal, hence the Twitter response was justified?

"In March 2024, after an antifascist group published materials claiming to have revealed his identity, StoneToss sought help from Twitter's owner Elon Musk. Twitter then suspended multiple users who included StoneToss's alleged real name in their tweets and amended its privacy policy to prohibit disclosure of others' real names. Critics took the move as evidence of Musk's preferential treatment for neo-Nazis, antisemites, and white supremacists."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing

Feels weird to me to mention this first but not mentioning doxing at all? 2A02:1210:2E8A:2200:B521:3DE7:D58F:68F (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

The article actually does mention the revelation of his alleged identity. Doxing is politicized language and might also risk suggesting Wikipedia had an official position as to whether he was correctly identified due to some of the connotations of doxing. So we use descriptive language instead. Simonm223 (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Please refer to the RFC at Special:PermanentLink/1219823677#RfC:_Should_the_revelation_of_StoneToss's_identity_be_referred_to_as_doxxing? which discussed this. TarnishedPath^talk 23:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Simonm223 and TarnishedPath that there is no need to refer to this as "doxing." The phrase currently used, "claiming to have revealed his identity," is accurate, supported by sources, and neutral. EdgierEdgar (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Ahh yes, neutrality by starting as “he is a neo nazi” with literally no citation on the actual article. 2806:2F0:A0C1:FCC3:225D:DFF:FE1B:5350 (talk) 05:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Sources contradict you. I suggest you read the discussion in the RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 09:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, as TarnishedPath says, multiple reliable sources are cited describing this neo-Nazi as a "neo-Nazi." In the very first sentence of the article, these citations include "X Blocked Journalists and Researchers Who Identified a Neo-Nazi Cartoonist" from Wired and "Musk tried to 'punish' critics, judge rules, in tossing a lawsuit" from The Washington Post which describes "neo-Nazi comic artist StoneToss." EdgierEdgar (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Page is very emotive.

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.

---

Please make it factual. 1.132.111.108 (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

This page operates in accordance with WP:V which is the policy basis for maintaining accuracy. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. There is no actionable, or even meaningful, request here. We are not going to waste our time trying to guess what, if anything, is being so vaguely complained about. DanielRigal (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2025 (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.

Source Bias.

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.

---

This source is an opinion article that primarily reports on the platform response (i.e., X suspending certain journalists) rather than providing direct evidence or citations of anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi content authored by Stonetoss. The Wired article does not quote Stonetoss, cite specific comic strips, or document any content that constitutes overt neo-Nazi ideology. Its assertion is based on external researcher claims, which are not independently verified within the article. Per WP:BLP, WP:LABEL, and WP:RS, labeling an individual or entity as “neo-Nazi” requires high-quality sourcing, particularly when making serious accusations about living persons. In this case, the source appears to be: A secondary opinion piece Lacking direct engagement with primary content (comics or statements) Focused more on platform moderation than the subject of this article Skyrd.techem (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Simonm223 (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Please define basis for "this is incorrect." response. Skyrd.techem (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

You are incorrectly identifying sources as opinion sources that are not. Furthermore you are ignoring several sources, focusing only on a few. Please refer to the RfC which led to this language. Simonm223 (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2025 (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.

The categories

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.

---

We decided upon treating this as an article on the person and not the webcomic. I suppose this is why we have stuck half the categories on StoneToss (webcomic) (Category:Political webcomics, Category:Internet properties established in 2017, Category:Neo-Nazi publications, Category:Internet memes introduced in 2017, Category:Jewish-related comics, Category:Holocaust denial in the United States, Category:Works published under a pseudonym, Category:Far-right publications in the United States)... however, this is very inconsistent, because Category:Antisemitic publications and Category:Internet memes introduced in 2017 and Category:Race-related controversies in comics on the main article. The person is clearly not a publication or a meme himself, so what gives? (In fairness, this is used to be in Antisemitism in literature, before i subdivided it, but if we're going at this from the angle of splitting the categories that is just as bad) We should have either all the person categories on one title and all the comic on the other or both. I don't care which we do, but for the love of god can we at least be consistent about it? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@PARAKANYAA I think the confusion may be because StoneToss is both the common name for the author and the title of their work. TarnishedPath^talk 05:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes but doing some of the comic categories on the person article and some on the comic redirect and not one or the other makes no sense. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any actionable request here. EdgierEdgar (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I think what they're asking for is for the categories for the comic to be on the redirect and the categories for the person to be on this page with less of a jumble across the two pages. Is that correct @PARAKANYAA? Simonm223 (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, or all on one. I don't care which but the way we do it now is illogical. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't personally have any opposition to this. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I am looking for a clear statement, something like "We should (add? remove?) this specific category from this specific page." Instead, I see a large amount of narrative backstory and "for the love of god" complaints, but I don't see anything that is a clear actionable request. EdgierEdgar (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

“We should have either all the person categories on one title and all the comic on the other or both”? I’m not telling you which to pick but I’m saying that the status quo must change which is an actionable request. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, you haven't been able to articulate a specific actionable change, of which specific category or categories you want added or removed from which specific page or pages. Therefore, status quo is fine with me. EdgierEdgar (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

The actionable change is pick one of option A or option B. If you fail to understand that I don't really know what to tell you! PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I moved the rest of the comic categories to the comic redirect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. —Alalch E. 01:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

For anyone else trying to decipher this proposal, it was to remove four categories from this article - Category:Antisemitic publications, Category:Internet memes introduced in 2017, Category:American comedy webcomics, and Category:Neo-Nazi websites - which they did in this edit. EdgierEdgar (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

...and to add them to the redirect. Or, alternatively, to remove all of the categories already at the redirect and add them here. The more correct thing was done: categories for "publications", "internet memes", "webcomics" and "websites" were moved to the redirect which has the webcomic as the subject, which subject is also a publication, an internet meme, and a website, whereas StoneToss the pseudonymous author -- the subject of this article -- is not a publication, an internet meme, a webcomic or a website. —Alalch E. 09:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. This is fine. I know we get a lot of trolling and POV pushing on this article and that can lead to hyper-vigilance from page watchers but this edit was none of those things. The correct categories are on the redirect and on the main page based on the article topic. It's fine. Good edit. Simonm223 (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this edit seems fine and uncontroversial. I have no idea why it was proposed with such "for the love of god" histrionics and a refusal to clearly state which specific categories they wanted to add/remove from what article(s). EdgierEdgar (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

1) Because people have been arguing about what categories go on this article since its creation

2) I did clearly state it, the people categories and the publication categories. There is no overlap. Why was that so hard to figure out? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2025 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2025

Add Category:Antisemitic works Add Category:Holocaust deniers 208.80.208.170 (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Antisemitic works doesn't apply as this is the page about the person, not the comic. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I have added Category:Holocaust deniers to this article and Category:Antisemitic works to the redirect at StoneToss (webcomic). Thank you for the clear, actionable request. EdgierEdgar (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Why does this not mention this guy's name?

It's not super he got doxxed, but it happened and this article just buries his name? Topagae (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Because we lack reliable sources that confirm his identity. Wikipedia isn't a journalistic project and we cannot do our own research - we depend on sources with a strong history of accuracy. This is especially strict when it comes to living people. Many outlets reported on the dox. So far none of them have said that the subject of the dox definitely is that guy. If that changes then so will the article, with very careful attribution. Simonm223 (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2025

I want to remove any mentions of the article calling him a "neo nazi". It's disingenuous considering he himself has proclaimed in the past to not be a neo nazi. If he says he isn't one, then he shouldn't be labeled as one, as it proves that the Wikipedia moderation team has a clear bias and thus makes this particular article misleading and inaccurate. CanonEvent05 (talk) 08:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Sources describe him as one. What he calls himself is irrelevant. In fact it would introduce MORE bias to prioritise his own description like this. See WP:MANDY — Czello ^(music) 08:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)