Jump to content

Talk:StoneToss

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Stonetoss)
Good articleStoneToss has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 5, 2021Articles for deletionDeleted
September 15, 2023Articles for deletionDeleted
March 29, 2024Articles for deletionKept
October 19, 2024Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 23, 2024.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that X's rules were changed when StoneToss sought help from Elon Musk after an anti-fascist group published materials claiming to have revealed their identity?
Current status: Good article


Did you know nomination

[edit]
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)[reply]

(
)
  • 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.

TarnishedPathtalk 23:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
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)[reply]


Twitter or X

[edit]

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. TarnishedPathtalk 00:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? TarnishedPathtalk 11:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's not called twitter any more? Secretlondon (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the WP:COMMONNAME, however. — Czello (music) 12:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
In the first 6 references used in the article 4 of them refer to Twitter or 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. TarnishedPathtalk 00:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'd tilt towards using the determined common name of the relevant article in these cases, which at the moment is Twitter. I think that's the easiest way to avoid rehashing the arguments over and over. Note for anyone inclined to argue that the RMs got it wrong that I supported moving to X in the most recent RM; my argument here is about following consensus and not whether consensus agrees with me, personally. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 21:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Names

[edit]

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)[reply]

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. CommissarDoggoTalk? 15:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
understood. I will see if i can find these things Genabab (talk) 12:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of sources

[edit]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"Reliable Sources"

[edit]
This has been discussed. If people want to challenge sources please bring policy based arguments. TarnishedPathtalk 11:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

See the above discussion, we've been over this ad nauseam. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:StoneToss&oldid=1273749030"