Talk:StoneToss

RfC: attribution of "neo-Nazi" characterization

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus in this discussion has more or less settled on maintaining status quo in regards to attribution of this label in the lead section. As the label in question is notably contentious, arguments were made for providing in-text attribution, but it was not demonstrated that the label was not "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". -- Reconrabbit (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

---

Should the lead describe StoneToss as a "neo-Nazi" in Wikipedia's own voice, or attribute that characterization to reliable sources? Should the short description likewise state "American neo-Nazi cartoonist", or use a description that does not state the characterization as fact? Viglietta2 (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

• My view is that the characterization should be attributed. MOS:LABEL explicitly lists "neo-Nazi" as a contentious label and says that when such labels are widely used by reliable sources, in-text attribution should be used. The 2024 RfC established consensus that the characterization should not be omitted from the first sentence, but it did not ask whether it should be attributed. Moreover, one of the major sources relied upon in that discussion, the Washington Post, subsequently revised its categorical wording and explicitly stated that use of the label regarding StoneToss is "a matter of debate". I am therefore not proposing that the characterization be removed, only that Wikipedia report it as a characterization made by reliable sources rather than state it categorically in its own voice. Viglietta2 (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2026 (UTC) — Viglietta2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It seems well sourced. Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

That does not address the RfC question. The issue is not whether the label is sourced, but whether MOS:LABEL requires in-text attribution. Please respond to the question actually being asked. Viglietta2 (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot). Could you clarify which Washington Post article was amended? The one cited for the opening sentence appears to still state the label as fact. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it is the Oremus and Telford Washington Post article from March 25, 2024, which is currently reference 4. The confusion is that Wikipedia's citation still quotes the original wording and links to an archived March 25 version. The live Post article was subsequently updated on May 29: it now says StoneToss is someone "whom some people describe as a neo-Nazi", and the clarification states that the article was revised because use of the label regarding StoneToss "is a matter of debate". So the quotation currently given in Wikipedia's reference is superseded. Viglietta2 (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

OK, I see it now. So at a minimum the citation needs to be updated, and I think if a reliable source of the standing of The Washington Post sees fit to walk the claim back, that puts it squarely in MOS:LABEL territory and our article should be updated too. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear, the Washington Post point actually overcomplicates things, because it doesn't even matter for the core issue. MOS:LABEL already identifies "neo-Nazi" as a contentious label and says that when such labels are widely used by reliable sources, they should be given with in-text attribution. So attribution is what the guideline calls for regardless of whether the Post later changed its wording. Viglietta2 (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support the status quo: The OP above makes an argument as if WaPo is the only source relied upon in the the prior RFC. That is not the case. A number of sources were put forward supporting the attribution. The OP makes the claim that the description is "contentious" but has provided zero sourcing, which is reliable and secondary, to demonstrate that it is contested. The label is widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject and therefore their argument about MOS:LABEL demanding attribution is not a good one. This should be snow closed. TarnishedPath^talk 14:07, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

  I did not claim that the Washington Post was the only source; I pointed out that it was one of the major sources relied upon and that it later revised its wording and explicitly said the label is "a matter of debate".

  More importantly, MOS:LABEL says that value-laden labels such as "neo-Nazi" are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources, "in which case use in-text attribution". The fact that the label is widely sourced is therefore not an argument against attribution; it is precisely the situation contemplated by the guideline. Viglietta2 (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

  WaPo explicitly revising their article to describe the label as a matter of debate is definitely evidence of it being contentious. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

  To be honest, I'm puzzled that this point keeps being overlooked: MOS:LABEL itself explicitly lists "neo-Nazi" under "Contentious labels", and says that when such labels are widely used by reliable sources, in-text attribution should be used. So whether the Washington Post is the only source, or whether its later revision is itself sufficient to establish that the label is contested, is irrelevant to this particular point. The guideline already addresses the situation directly. What am I missing? Viglietta2 (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

  That manual of style page is a guideline, not a cast-iron rule. It doesn’t prohibit using potentially-contentious labels in wikivoice if there is unanimity in reliable sources that the subject really is that thing. Something like Atomwaffen Division, for example. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks, that makes sense. I see now why the Washington Post revision is relevant. Viglietta2 (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

  OK, so aside from it being vaguely referred to, where is that debate in reliable, secondary sources? TarnishedPath^talk 05:24, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  I wonder whether the same evidentiary standard is being applied consistently. In the earlier discussion, for example, StoneToss's own denial was dismissed as "very obviously insincere", which is itself an interpretation of what he really believes. It seems odd to demand unusually strong secondary sourcing merely to establish that a characterization is disputed, while being so ready to make interpretive judgments in the opposite direction.

  In any case, to answer your question: the dispute is documented in reliable secondary sources. The Washington Post itself revised its categorical wording and explicitly states that use of the label regarding StoneToss is "a matter of debate". WIRED independently reports StoneToss's rejection of the label and then explains why it nevertheless retains the characterization. So this does not depend on treating StoneToss's own statements as reliable; reliable secondary sources themselves document the disagreement. Other reliable sources are also less categorical: the Daily Dot calls him "far-right" and says he has been "accused of having Nazi sympathies", while the Evening Standard attributes the stronger characterization to researchers rather than adopting it in its own voice. Viglietta2 (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  StoneToss, the person, is neither a reliable, nor a secondary source. And if WaPo says it's a mater of debate, where? Wired's reporting of StoneToss's rejection does not make StoneToss's words reliable. TarnishedPath^talk 05:49, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  You are still conflating two different questions: whether StoneToss's denial is true/reliable, and whether reliable secondary sources document that the characterization is disputed. I am claiming the latter, not the former.

  The Washington Post says this itself, in the clarification at the bottom of the live article: "The article has been revised to reflect that use of the label regarding StoneToss is a matter of debate." That is the Post's own editorial statement, not StoneToss's. Likewise, WIRED reports his rejection of the label and then explains why it nevertheless retains the characterization. The point is not that WIRED thereby makes StoneToss's denial true; it is that a reliable secondary source is documenting the disagreement. Other reliable sources also use less categorical formulations, such as "far-right" or attributed accusations of Nazi sympathies. So the existence of a dispute does not depend on treating StoneToss himself as a reliable source. Viglietta2 (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  So where is the debate then? Just because his words are reported by others it doesn't make the words themselves reliable or secondary. Where is the disagreement from reliable, secondary sources? Also, that some sources may have chosen to use an umbrella term, which is inclusive of neo-nazism, doesn't demonstrate disagreement. TarnishedPath^talk 06:11, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  WaPo is a generally reliable source. We don’t need another RS to verify that a RS is reliable. The debate could well be happening in sources that we would consider unreliable, and WaPo is reliably reporting that debate. This is common practice for many RSes which report things like “so and so said this on Twitter”, which we then reflect in articles here.

  The WaPo correction is particularly compelling because it’s not just a case of a source not using a term; it’s a mainstream outlet making an explicit editorial decision to course-correct from one description to another. I wouldn’t put nearly as much weight on this if WaPo had simply implicitly chosen not to use the label. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  No we don't need any sources to verify WaPo as being generally reliable, but if they are saying there is debate, where exactly is that debate in reliable secondary sources? All they are saying is that it is "a matter of debate". A matter of debate by whom? By StoneToss? StoneToss is not a reliable, nor secondary source. TarnishedPath^talk 07:11, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  What exactly WaPo means by "a matter of debate" is a separate question, which you may wish to take up with WaPo. The relevant point here is simply that a reliable secondary source explicitly says the label is disputed. More importantly, you still have not addressed the fundamental question: why should this case be treated as an exception to MOS:LABEL? Viglietta2 (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  No it's not a separate question. Where is that actual debate between secondary sources. Which secondary sources are disputing it? TarnishedPath^talk 08:15, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  You are now asserting that the debate itself must be between reliable secondary sources. What policy or guideline requires that? Viglietta2 (talk) 08:23, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  Moreover, I think this reverses the issue. If you choose to depart from the default treatment prescribed by MOS:LABEL, which expressly lists "neo-Nazi" among contentious labels that should be given in-text attribution, then the burden is on you to justify that departure. So far, the only justification I have seen specifically for not attributing the label is the claim that StoneToss's denial is "very obviously insincere", which is an editor's personal assessment, not a policy-based reason to disregard the guideline. Viglietta2 (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  Also, somewhat ironically, this whole exchange rather neatly illustrates why MOS:LABEL is so specific on this point: to prevent editors' own biases from being expressed in Wikipedia's voice. Viglietta2 (talk) 06:56, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• Snow close. Why are we arguing with a disruptive SPA? The SPA has already made their motives perfectly clear in the threads above. Insofar as there is anything of substance here TarnishedPath just covered it. We don't need to waste any more of our time on this. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

  Whether I am an SPA does not answer the content question. WP:SPA itself says that comments consistent with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines should be given full weight regardless of an SPA tag. And given that an uninvolved editor has already identified a substantive issue with the current wording, I don't see how this is appropriate for a snow close. I would prefer that the RfC be allowed to address the actual MOS:LABEL question. Viglietta2 (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

  Also, to avoid any misunderstanding, TarnishedPath's responses have consistently failed to address the specific question I have raised several times: why MOS:LABEL's explicit instruction to use in-text attribution does not apply here. Viglietta2 (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:SATISFY. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:SATISFY would be relevant if I were demanding repeated answers to a question that had already been addressed. My point is precisely that the attribution question under MOS:LABEL has not been addressed at all. Viglietta2 (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

If we are not snow closing this, which we absolutely should, then in the alternative I !vote for the Status quo. The table added by TarnishedPath below makes it clearer than ever that there is no argument for equivocation or softening of the well sourced description. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Pinging @Alalch E., @CommunityNotesContributor, @Ethmostigmus, @Aquillion, @Buidhe, @Simonm223, @EvergreenFir, @GranCavallo and @Isaidnoway from the prior RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 05:33, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• Even if WaPo were not to have recanted the label-in-article-voice, the current lead would still be a serious BLP violation: "neo-Nazi" in wikivoice in the first sentence violates MOS:FIRSTBIO (specifically the "avoiding [...] contentious terms" part). Its attributed inclusion may be merited, further down the lead. Agree with the requirement to attribute per MOS:LABEL; same for the "racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, and antisemitic views" currently in wikivoice, among which "racist" is not substantiated in the body currently, though that should not be hard to source. ~2026-44713-21 (talk) 07:48, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  If you're going to claim that it's contentious, you'll need to show reliable, secondary sources disputing it in their own voices. Otherwise, it's just StoneToss themselves denying it and of course they would. TarnishedPath^talk 07:54, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  No, I will in fact not need to do so. It is explicitly listed at MOS:LABEL as a contentious label. It is upon editors in favour of including it in the lead at all to prove that RSes are uniformly using the descriptor. ~2026-44713-21 (talk) 08:05, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  If there is no disagreement between secondary reliable sources then it is not contentious. Regarding your calling out ONUS, we already had an RFC on using the descriptor. TarnishedPath^talk 08:11, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think that is precisely backwards. MOS:LABEL itself expressly identifies "neo-Nazi" as a contentious label; it does not say that the term ceases to be contentious when reliable sources agree on its application. Viglietta2 (talk) 08:17, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  The MOS states that the terms listed may express contentious opinion (my bolding for emphasis), not that they necessarily do. If you or others are going to make an argument that the description is contentious, you need to pony up with reliable secondary sources which contest it in their own right. Otherwise your argument is hollow. TarnishedPath^talk 09:09, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  Full sentence, for posterity:

  Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution (my underlining for emphasis).

  Drop the stick, please. ~2026-44713-21 (talk) 09:15, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  The "may" qualifies whether such labels express contentious opinion; it does not qualify the prescription that follows. MOS:LABEL says they are "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources, in which case use in-text attribution". Where does the guideline say that agreement among reliable sources removes that attribution requirement? Viglietta2 (talk) 09:15, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  Your reading of the MOS would have us add attribution to every single article on neo-Nazis, even those neo-Nazis that accept the label. I don't think this reading is consistent with actual practice. Katzrockso (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, there can be exceptions to a general rule. Hence the original question: what justifies departing from MOS:LABEL and MOS:FIRSTBIO in this particular case? Viglietta2 (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think your interpretation of MOS:LABEL that all uses of the term neo-Nazi need to be attributed is not correct, so there is no departure from the guideline in the first place Katzrockso (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  To be clear, notice that these guidelines exist precisely because Wikipedia recognizes the tendency of some editors to slap labels on people who do not accept them. Viglietta2 (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  That RfC was open for a little over 12 hours, unreasonably snowclosed, examined a very limited number of sources (none academic), a substantial proportion of which did not even align with the RfC's conclusion.

  This is something that I believe is reasonable to relitigate.

  You are also approaching WP:GASLIGHTING here, which I will not engage further. ~2026-44713-21 (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  If you find issue with the RFC close, then challenge it per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. TarnishedPath^talk 09:05, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  And get a prompt CBAN for challenging an RfC closed 2.5 years ago. Mhm. ~2026-44713-21 (talk) 09:10, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, the previous RfC that keeps being mentioned addressed whether "neo-Nazi" should remain in the first sentence, not whether it should be attributed. The present RfC accepts its inclusion and concerns only attribution under MOS:LABEL. Viglietta2 (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  Oh just stop. The guy is a nazi who drew nazi cartoons and this is all well sourced. Nobody forced him to do that. If you feel it hurts his reputation then consider he chose to publicly espouse those views. Simonm223 (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  That completely misses the point. The present RfC already accepts inclusion of the label and asks only whether Wikipedia will apply its own standard consistently by attributing the label under MOS:LABEL. Don't you see that the guideline exists for exactly this kind of situation? The fact that editors are fighting tooth and nail against simple attribution while treating the strongest possible label as settled fact is a joke StoneToss himself couldn't have written any better. This is a perfect live-action version of the kind of behavior his comics have been mocking for years. Viglietta2 (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• Do I have to actually write anything or can I just point to what TarnishedPath and Simonm223 have written above? Polygnotus (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  Neither of them addressed the clear-cut policy violations so far. Maybe you can? ~2026-44834-04 (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  What policy violations? The only semi-credible arguments here are to MOS:LABEL. An RFC already decided there was no policy violation in calling them a neo-nazi. TarnishedPath^talk 00:20, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  Do you recognize that there is a difference between consensus to include the descriptor "neo-Nazi" and consensus to state that descriptor unattributed in Wikipedia's own voice? Please answer with a simple yes or no, so we can move the discussion forward. Viglietta2 (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  You've already been advised to read WP:BADGER. I suggest you take that opportunity. TarnishedPath^talk 04:09, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  I find the invocation of WP:BADGER rather selective. You have repeatedly re-entered this discussion, reiterated the same arguments, and brought the previous RfC back into a discussion that is specifically about attribution. I answered the point you raised and then asked one narrow yes-or-no question precisely to bring the discussion back to the question this RfC is actually asking. Instead of answering it, you invoked WP:BADGER and told me to stop engaging. If repeatedly pressing the same points while declining to engage with the answer is the conduct that guideline warns against, then you might consider whether it applies at least as much to your own participation here. Viglietta2 (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Article is obviously correct: This has already been repeatedly answered. "Neo-Nazi" and many similar terms are widely used by multiple reliable sources. There are not multiple comparable sources contradicting this. It is not as if there are sources saying "This Nazi was actually promoting civil rights, actually." The only thing pointed to is one source that says "After this article published, the administrator for the StoneToss website said the artist disavows the neo-Nazi label." Of course a Nazi internet troll wanted to argue about whether or not they are Nazi trolling or not. This is how Nazi trolling works. They do a bunch of Nazi stuff, then make endless demands to cry to yet another manager, about how they're the real victim because they got accurately called a Nazi. Rinse. Repeat. Do Nazi stuff. Cry for more attention. Forever. Waste everyone's time. Batmanalyzer (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  The closer is reminded that consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not the number or standing of editors making the argument; and that arguments not based on (or directly contravening) policy should be excluded from the assessment. ~2026-44834-04 (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  See WP:BADGER specifically:

  1. Each time you use an argument, it becomes weaker. Continuing to argue the same point doesn't reinforce it and can be annoying to others, appearing combative rather than consensus seeking.
  2. When you dominate a conversation by replying many times, others may see you as attempting to "own" an article or the subject at hand. This is a type of tendentious editing.
  3. It is not your responsibility to point out every flaw in everyone's comments. If their opinion is so obviously flawed, give other readers the benefit of the doubt in figuring that out on their own.

  Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  This again argues that the label is accurate and well sourced, which the RfC does not dispute. The question is whether it should be stated in Wikipedia's own voice or attributed under MOS:LABEL. Repeatedly insisting that StoneToss is a Nazi does not address that question. Viglietta2 (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  If you arent the temp account(s) then see here. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

  I am not any of the temporary accounts. I replied because Batmanalyzer addressed a different question from the one posed by the RfC (as, in fact, have a majority of respondents). Clarifying the scope of the RfC once is not an attempt to answer every disagreement, especially when no disagreement with the actual proposal was expressed. Viglietta2 (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  This Orwellian garbage is going to continue until they bludgeon their way into a status quo/IAR "consensus" ruling. The closer will not care about policy. The close reviewers will not care about policy. Don't waste your time, go edit something else. AMPOL is hopeless. ~2026-45028-56 (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  An WP:IAR argument would be particularly weak here, since following the guidelines would improve the article's credibility with minimal effort, and avoid making Wikipedia itself embody the very ideologized, label-driven culture that cartoons like this one ridicule. (That the cartoon's message is considerably more nuanced than the Wikipedia article makes it out to be is a separate, quite compelling issue as well.) Viglietta2 (talk) 08:42, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  The three temp accounts in this discussion (~2026-44713-21, ~2026-44834-04 and ~2026-45028-56) are almost certainly the same individual. TarnishedPath^talk 08:06, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  Correct. And only one vote was cast among them.

  Take any further aspersions to the relevant noticeboard, please. ~2026-45028-56 (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

You know, I actually agree with the TA here. If these are all the same person then taking it to SPI would be the best way to put an end to this ridiculous concatenation of vexatious nonsense. I share the suspicion that there is something fishy going on here. All are SPAs on this one topic. They show a suspicious fluency in all our policies (except BLUDGEON) and in which techniques are the most effective for wasting our time. Few genuinely new users would be able to do that, even most long-time lurkers would struggle. It could be sockpuppetry or some sort of coordinated meatpuppetry. For me, I'm not sure whether it is quite certain enough for an SPI yet. That said, if anybody is more certain of it than I am then please go for it.

Even if they are not the same person, there are definitely still issues of BLUDGEONing and general disruption here but trying to deal with that would lead to more of the time-wasting argumentation that they (singular or plural) crave. A nice neat SPI would foreclose that. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:34, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I made no suggestion that the TAs were being used in a sock-like manner, There is no crossover in the dates of commenting. I was merely stating a fact. An SPI would be a waste of time. TarnishedPath^talk 09:50, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

The vast majority of editors here seemingly refuse to engage with the actual argument (the few that have, reached the same conclusion), and instead answer a question that was not asked. This is pointed out civilly and in good faith, each time.

Should it not?

I see no metric of bludgeoning or disruption that this would fit. ~2026-44995-46 (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Quite a revealing way to frame the situation: the other side is suspiciously competent, continuing to deflect is becoming too much work, so better find a procedural shortcut to shut the discussion down.

That is not how consensus is supposed to work. Imagine how much less "disruptive" and "time-wasting" this would be if the actual RfC question were simply answered. Viglietta2 (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

You may disagree with me, but that doesn't make my response to the RfC question a non-answer. And then you asked a different question in response. Polygnotus (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• In text attributionGiven that multiple RS use the term MOS is clear on the way to proceed.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
• Status quo, no attribution necessary. The Washington Post article, while reliable in general, is discussing StoneToss in passing. Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, the best sources for this are those that discuss the subject directly and in detail. All of the articles that discuss StoneToss in the most detail explicitly label him as a neo-Nazi. There is no reason Wikipedia should not follow the sources in this regard. Academic sources, such as the Global Network on Extremism & Technology label him as a "crypto-Nazi".
  

To Catch a Fascist by Christopher Mathias also describes him as a "wildly popular white supremacist cartoonist" on page 231. Another source that hasn't been mentioned yet too .Katzrockso (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

You have given further arguments for applying MOS:LABEL, rather than explained why this case should depart from it. The fact that detailed reliable sources use strong characterizations of StoneToss establishes that such characterizations are well sourced; MOS:LABEL expressly contemplates that situation and says to use in-text attribution. So what, specifically, justifies departing from that treatment here?

As for WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, the WaPo clarification is not an incidental remark about the label: it specifically explains that the article was revised because use of the "neo-Nazi" label regarding StoneToss is "a matter of debate". And the two additional sources you cite actually use different characterizations ("crypto-Nazi" and "white supremacist cartoonist") rather than demonstrating uniform use of "neo-Nazi".

Besides, MOS:FIRSTBIO is even more restrictive on this point: it says to avoid subjective or contentious terms in the first sentence. The cleaner application would therefore be to identify StoneToss neutrally in the first sentence and give the attributed characterization later in the lead. So even setting MOS:LABEL aside, what justifies departing from MOS:FIRSTBIO here? Viglietta2 (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

This has been addressed above. TarnishedPath^talk 03:38, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

This has already been addressed above. Pretending not to be able to read/understand the actual text of the policy or waive its application arbitrarily is disruptive. IAR is a non-starter here. ~2026-45028-56 (talk) 07:49, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Status quo for the same common sense reasons as everyone else. If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and no one has presented any evidence in reliable sources to say otherwise: it's a duck. I appreciate the users who have tried to genuinely engage with this "debate", but I think the best thing to do here is WP:DENY until someone presents actual evidence that labelling StoneToss a Nazi is actually contentious among reliable sources. If no new sources are presented, it's just more bludgeoning whataboutism, and I think we all have better things to do than waste our time on this. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:04, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  The problem with the "duck" analogy is that StoneToss is a satirist who repeatedly mocks the very people who interpret his work that way. Pointing to the cartoons, assuming the literal reading is correct, and then citing that assumption as proof is circular reasoning, not evidence. If "it looks like a duck" were enough, we might as well call Charlie Chaplin a Nazi.

  Besides, even granting your premise that the characterization is well sourced, you still have not addressed the actual style question. MOS:LABEL says that widely sourced value-laden labels should be attributed, and MOS:FIRSTBIO separately advises avoiding subjective or contentious terms in the first sentence (you may believe that "neo-Nazi" is not contentious in this particular case, but MOS:LABEL expressly lists the term among its words to watch). What in either guideline makes unanimous sourcing an exception to those instructions? Viglietta2 (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  This has already been addressed above. TarnishedPath^talk 03:38, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Viglietta2 You are now at ~24 comments, most of which are very repetitive. Maybe move on? Polygnotus (talk) 03:39, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Viglietta2 Also what are the usernames of your previous account(s)? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  I understand the concern about repetition, but when several editors repeatedly answer a different question from the one posed by the RfC, why should I not point out the misunderstanding and clarify what the RfC is actually asking? I am not trying to answer every disagreement; in many cases there has been no disagreement with the actual proposal at all, because the response addressed a different issue.

  As for accounts, I have never had any previous account other than User:Viglietta, which I used only briefly before switching to this one. I am still relatively inexperienced with Wikipedia's account mechanics and mistakenly thought the old account had effectively been closed and was no longer usable. There was no intention to conceal the connection or to use multiple accounts in this discussion, and I am not any of the temporary accounts participating here. Viglietta2 (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  Without commenting on the substance of this RfC: Vigiletta2, you have replied to every single editor that has contributed to this discussion, often multiple times. This is a clear-cut example of bludgeoning. You have already clearly stated your position; clarifying it and attempting to correct other editors over and over is not productive and makes it harder to close the discussion. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  Fair point. I was trying to clarify what seemed to be a recurring misunderstanding of the RfC question, rather than to persuade every individual respondent, but I can see that I have replied too often. I'll step back from the discussion now. Viglietta2 (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  This misrepresents the discussion above. Pretending not to be able to read/understand the actual text of the policy or waive its application arbitrarily is disruptive. IAR is a non-starter here. ~2026-45028-56 (talk) 07:51, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  Why are people !voting here? This is not an RfC and an informal discussion will not overturn the well-attended RfC. Nor will a conversation bludgeoned by one brand new single-purpose account and a group of associated temporary accounts. Simonm223 (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  Never mind. I see it's merely a malformed RfC opened without appropriate WP:RFCBEFORE. !vote below. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

• Procedural Close Inappropriately opened RfC - no proper WP:RFCBEFORE completed. Editor has not demonstrated there is a change in consensus or in sourcing since prior RfC. Simonm223 (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
• Status quo. As someone who edits a lot about Neo-Nazis, and who is very insistent on MOS:LABEL, I do not think there is an issue here. Not all the labels in that section are treated the same - the value laden labels which do mandate attribution are not all the labels discussed in that section. The thing is things like terrorist, cult, or racist are basically wholly subjective, and so by their nature are value judgements that have no objective weight. Neo-Nazism is listed in the overhead section of labels to watch, but not with the mandate attribution ones. And comparing it to the labels that are listed to see how they compare and if it should be used the same way, Neo-Nazism, on the other hand, is synonymous with "postwar National Socialism", Nazism/National Socialism being the specific ideology, and there are many people who are in fact objectively ideological adherents to "National Socialism" and who self describe as such or who evidently adhere to the ideology. Neo-Nazi is therefore not a "value laden label" in the same way. It is a very serious label and it should be well sourced but it is about as value laden as say, "communist" (not to compare these things in moral value but I am using them as examples of specific ideologies that many people also use as a pejorative); if there was, say, a writer who denies being a communist but who every RS describes as a communist and who RS document as ideologically communist, we should call them a communist. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for the good-faith input.

  Do you think neo-Nazi can reasonably fit into any category mentioned under MOS:LABEL other than the "value-laden label" one? (Otherwise it feels pointless to include within the "words to watch" list either - watch, for what reason? I think the policy is meant to cover "communist", "far-left", "far-right" all the same - labels that ostensibly do have a definition, but are often used as snarl words nonetheless.) ~2026-45151-82 (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think, like the other example, it means more generally that it is a loaded word that should be used carefully and only with solid sourcing. E.g., the word "myth" is prescribed against in its informal sense only, and it cautions about the circumstances one can use the prefix "pseudo-", but they are not banned words. Neo-Nazi is not a word that should be used lightly, is what I get from it, so we should be cautious about using it and should require good sourcing; if we were to mandate attribution of all such "snarl words" in all contexts I think describing anything political would be impossible. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think mandating attribution for these "snarl words" (like "scholars and journalists [variously] describe X's political views as Y [, Z, etc.]", as it is usually done), and (for BLPs) omission from the first sentence (per MOS:FIRSTBIO), as a general rule, is a reasonable and implementable interpretation of this policy (not least, from the WMF's perspective, as a protective mechanism against defamation lawsuits).

  Thank you for providing your detailed position! ~2026-45178-09 (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I said above that I would step back from the discussion, and I intend to do so. I am responding once more only because I subsequently did some research into the specific claim made above that "all of the articles that discuss StoneToss in the most detail explicitly label him as a neo-Nazi", and that Wikipedia should therefore simply "follow the sources" rather than apply MOS:LABEL. This has been a central argument for opposing this RfC, but on closer inspection it is far from an accurate description of the sources.

The present categorical sentence, "StoneToss is a pseudonymous American neo-Nazi political cartoonist", has four citations attached to it:

• WIRED: directly calls StoneToss a "neo-Nazi cartoonist". See below for a closer examination of this source.
• Washington Post: the current version says "whom some people describe as a neo-Nazi", and its clarification explicitly states that application of the label is "a matter of debate".
• GNET, "Saint Kyle": calls him a "crypto-Nazi cartoonist". This is a GNET Insights webpage, not a peer-reviewed article.
• ECPS: does not call him a neo-Nazi at all. It says that the comic contains "Holocaust-denial dog whistles" and semi-coded references to white-supremacist, homophobic, and misogynistic thinking.

The other sources used later in the article characterize StoneToss as follows:

• NBC: "antisemitic cartoonist". "Neo nazi" appears only in an attributed quotation from Alejandra Caraballo.
• Daily Dot: "far-right", and says that he has been "accused of having Nazi sympathies".
• Der Standard: rechtsextrem, i.e. far-right/right-wing extremist, not neo-Nazi.
• ADL: "far-right illustrator".
• Peer-reviewed GSQ article: "extreme rightwing cartoonist known for his bigoted work".
• GNET research report: says that he "pulls from neo-Nazi views and makes them more palatable for a broader audience".
• CEP: says that the comic "frequently endorses extreme right-wing and white nationalist themes"; it does not call StoneToss a neo-Nazi.
• The Nation: "neo-Nazi cartoonist", in passing.

So the supposed consensus among reliable sources is considerably less categorical than has been represented here. Most of these sources do not simply state that StoneToss is a neo-Nazi, and several deliberately use materially different formulations.

There is also a separate problem with WIRED, which makes the most categorical claim and therefore deserves special attention.

WP:RSP records WIRED as generally reliable "for science and technology", which does not, by itself, establish reliability for this political and biographical characterization. WP:RS explicitly requires reliability to be assessed in relation to the particular claim. Thus, in this case, it matters whether WIRED actually provides a sound basis for the characterization.

When StoneToss challenged the "neo-Nazi" label, WIRED attempted to substantiate it by saying that his website had published "numerous cartoons explicitly endorsing Nazi ideology". Yet the only two concrete examples it gives for that assertion are not StoneToss cartoons at all, but Red Panels cartoons: Übermensch, from 2015, and An Honest Politician, Red Panels #180, from 2016. This is especially odd because WIRED itself presents the identification of StoneToss with Red Panels as a claim made by the Anonymous Comrades Collective. In other words, its argument first depends on accepting the alleged Red Panels-StoneToss identification, and then quietly treats Red Panels material as though it had literally been published by "the Stonetoss website".

The interpretations of those two cartoons are not particularly convincing either.

For Übermensch, WIRED explains that this is the term "which Nazi's [sic] used to describe the master race", and treats this as evidence that the cartoon "explicitly" endorses Nazi ideology. But the entire gag is that a white man is lectured that, because of his race and sex, society supposedly regards him as more intelligent, competent, trustworthy, attractive, etc., and he consequently begins to see himself as superior. That ironic consequence is the punchline. WIRED manages to take the punchline literally and, rather impressively, walks straight into the joke.

An Honest Politician is even more obvious: ordinary politicians promise to "take care of" people and then fail to deliver, whereas Hitler promised to "take care of" the Jews and actually carried out what he had promised. That is the entire dark joke behind calling him an "honest politician". It only works because what Hitler did is understood to be atrocious. Treating the joke as praise for Hitler therefore confuses keeping a horrific promise with approving of the promise itself. Here again, the supposed evidence of Nazi sympathies arises from taking the joke's premise as the author's own position.

So WIRED's evidentiary chain is remarkably weak for such a serious biographical characterization. For comparison, Breitbart, which Wikipedia deprecates, quotes StoneToss's denial and links directly to actual StoneToss cartoons offered as examples of his stated views. The irony is that the rejected source at least lets the reader inspect StoneToss's own work and rebuttal, whereas WIRED supports its categorical "neo-Nazi" characterization with two Red Panels cartoons whose attribution to StoneToss depends on a separate third-party identification, and then offers readings of both jokes that are, at the very least, highly contestable. Viglietta2 (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Not a single one of the articles quoted above states in their own voice that he is not a neo-Nazi. Not a single one disputes the description.

What Breitbart (we're really going to quote from actual far-right publication now?) published about it is irrelevant for our purposes, because as you clearly point out they are so badly considered by the community that we have deprecated them. Even if they weren't deprecated, which they are for very good reason, what of StoneToss's own words? Their words contradict their actions. They are literally known for publishing comics which feature tropes like Jewish conspiracies and Holocaust denial. We prefer what reliable, secondary sources state, not self-serving slop. TarnishedPath^talk 10:36, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

This is rapidly becoming a WP:DEADHORSE scenario. Katzrockso (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• Here's a source analysis built from the previous RFC

Organization	Label	Link	WP:RSP
DailyDot	Author of far-right comic		Additional Considerations
Advocate	alleged neo-Nazi		N/A
Wired	Neo-Nazi Cartoonist		Generally Reliable
MSN	neo-Nazi cartoonist		N/A
Boing Boing	Nazi cartoonist		Additional Considerations
NBC	"antisemitic cartoonist" in article voice. "neo nazi” attributed to Alejandra Caraballo - clinical instructor at the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic		Generally Reliable
LGBTQ Nation	alt-right cartoonist		N/A
Ars Technica	neo-Nazi cartoonist		Generally Reliable
Mashable	"far-right webcomic creator" in article voice. "neo nazi cartoonist" attributed		Additional Considerations
The Washington Post	neo-Nazi comic artist		Generally Reliable
Yahoo News/Evening Standard	crypto-Nazi cartoonist, neo-Nazi views, attributed to Global Network on Extremism and Technology		Additional Considerations

Not a single one disputing the description of neo-Nazi and the ones that don't directly use the term use language which can be seen as complimentary. TarnishedPath^talk 11:15, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

WaPo recanted, the ES article is citogenetic, that makes 4/10 in article voice.

For a label of this weight, after a search this selective, that is laughable.

The sources "dispute the description", per your demand, by using other labels they deem more accurate. (You would not find a single article explicitly stating that Hasan Piker is not far-left, but would fight tooth and nail if someone were to find 2 RSes and shoehorn the label into sentence 1 in wikivoice based on this reasoning.) We do (or at least should) not arbitrarily default to the worst available label.

WP:RSBIAS does not preclude quoting from what you call "far-right" sources.

Moreover, you are well over 20 comments on this RfC, and have been reiterating the same thing over and over and over.

Stop bludgeoning, please. ~2026-45212-68 (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you please list your previous accounts? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I do not track every TA I had. ~2026-45145-54 (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Maybe, so what about your previous non-temporary accounts? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

None. Never had one.

The point of this interrogation being? ~2026-45145-54 (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

What interrogation? Polygnotus (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Man, the brazenness (and irony) of an actual sockpuppet pulling this crap... ~2026-48202-93 (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

It becomes difficult to keep track of who is participating in a discussion if their names keep changing. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I notice that you asked ~2026-45212-68 and ~2026-45145-54 replied as if it had been addressed to them. Have they disclosed being the same person? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Same person.

Kindly collapse this, take to the relevant noticeboard if you have doubts, and FOC? ~2026-45145-54 (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

"sources "dispute the description", per your demand, by using other labels they deem more accurate".

Incorrect, none of the alternative labels contradict "neo-Nazi". Not a single reliable, secondary source has been presented which states "he is not a neo-Nazi" or words to that effect. The only source I've seen disputing it is StoneToss themselves, and of course they would. StoneToss is of exceedingly little credibility on the subject of whether they are a neo-Nazi.

WP:RSBIAS may not preclude quoting from far-right sources; however, per WP:BRIETBART community consensus is that they have published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories as fact. So egregious is their conduct, in publishing deliberate falsehoods, that they are on Wikipedia's spam blacklist. Anyone quoting Brietbart, in support of their arguments, should never be taken seriously. TarnishedPath^talk 13:02, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support the status quo. MOS:LABEL says that labels "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject" should be used, it doesn't say that they can't be used. The sources provided so that the label is widely and regularly used, so it should not be attributed as that gives a false impression. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:32, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  Well, MOS:LABEL does say "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." This "in which case" does mandate attribution. However this is specifically for the labels "cult, racist, sexist, terrorist, freedom fighter, perversion", and for analogous terms. However as I said above I do not think neo-Nazi is the same as those, in the same way "myth" is not despite being in that section. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  "neo-Nazi" is on the 'Words to watch' box at the top of the section. However a MOS guideline doesn't overcome the policy that we should state what is found in reliable sources or that we shouldn't state facts as opinions. LABEL isn't even part of BLP, BLP states "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources." I've long thought the phrasing in LABEL is ambiguous and doesn't match up with policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:15, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  "doesn't overcome the policy that we should state what is found in reliable sources or that we shouldn't state facts as opinions" - sure? Wasn't disagreeing with that, but we also don't say opinions as facts. MOS:LABEL is an additional restriction on top of that. We do not say opinions or value judgements as fact. It's the same reason we don't describe Adolf Hitler as evil in wikivoice, despite the fact he is universally described as evil. "neo-Nazi" is on the "'Words to watch' box at the top of the section", sure, and so is "myth" and "pseudo-", but myth is not covered by the always attribute note, but is handled differently. They are words to watch, but we do not respond the same way to all of them; neo-nazi, unlike the other words listed, is not really a value statement any more than communist is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  Guidelines are meant to clarify, not add extra requirements to policy (especially a guideline that about how to style an article in conflict with policy on how an article should be written to ensure that it's neutral). If sources state as true fact something so should Wikipedia. Other than terrorist / freedom fighter, a real dichotomy, most over terms can be determined by criteria. LABEL is given way to much weight in these discussions, what it says doesn't out weigh, or create new requirements in conflict with, NPOV.
  If LABEL would introduce a bias that isn't present in the sources, then LABEL must be discarded. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:12, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure you two are in any sort of substantive disagreement? TarnishedPath^talk 11:04, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  We do not state opinions in wikivoice. As I said, we not say "Hitler is evil" or "Stalin is evil" or "x is good" or "x is bad" in Wikivoice. That is a basic aspect of NPOV, WP:OPINION. No matter how well sourced an opinion is it cannot be fact, that is what that first part of MOS:LABEL is clarifying. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

  LABEL gets pushed over policy because some people don't like the corrects terms for people they like being used. NPOV and BLP is quite clear that Wikipedia should describe things and people in the way that reliable sources describe them. If these things are opinion then they should be attributed, as per your examples, but your examples only apply if they are opinions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:31, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think that it might be worth making another push to soften the language of WP:LABEL. A hard requirement to use attribution for certain terms regardless of the sourcing clearly contravenes core policy, and it's repetitive to have to explain this to people over and over. --Aquillion (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  Plenty of sourcing says things are "evil", that does not mean we should describe those things as evil in wikivoice; neutrality is more than laundering opinion statements into wikivoice. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, and all of the examples where attribution is mandated are opinions? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  For context, because I think everyone here may have gotten confused about what I am arguing, I am arguing for calling StoneToss a neo-Nazi, because classification of political views is not a "value-laden label" that expresses opinion. I am defending the current writing of MOS:LABEL, which prohibits actual opinion statements (e.g. pervert or freedom fighter/terrorist). PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

This may be getting offtopic and should perhaps be discussed elsewhere, but my problem with your approach is that you're still basically saying that we, as editors, can and should use our own judgment to determine when something is a "value-laden label" and refuse to use it regardless of sourcing. I don't think we can make that call. I do think that we should avoid value-laden labels, sure... but the ultimate determination of what falls under that category is the best available sourcing, not our own judgment. If we have eg. multiple papers of record and high-quality peer-reviewed academic sourcing using a term as if it is neutral, impartial fact in a particular context or as it regards a particualr topic, and the sourcing is generally overwhelming in treating it that way, then we must treat it as so in the article voice - "this word is on the no-no word list, so it doesn't matter what the sources say, we can't use it in the article voice" is never a policy-compliant argument. Or, in other words, by my reading the premise behind WP:WTW is "these are words we can usually assume that the best sources will not use as if they are impartial, dispassionate facts; based on that persumption, we should avoid using them ourselves, and even if one or two sources use them that way we can reasonably presume those are outliers, demanding more or higher-quality sources or erring on the side of caution." But that presumption only lasts up to a point. If sufficient high-quality WP:RSes describe someone as a terrorist as if it is a dispassionate description of uncontroversial fact, we are required to do so in the article voice ourselves; refusing to do so would violate WP:NPOV in that we'd be prioritizing our own opinions above that of the sources, which we cannot do. I think it's extremely unlikely that the sources would ever use "pervert" that way, but if it did happen we'd have to do it. I should point out, though, that our article on Osama Bin Laden describes his actions as terrorism and his people as terrorists in the lead, with no attribution and as uncontested objective fact, as it absolutely is and as the sources do absolutely require. And there are many other such words which (as you can see from this discussion) people have tried to use WP:LABEL to censor based on a personal belief that the words are value-laden even when sourcing doesn't agree; so the basic principle that LABEL must yield to sufficient sourcing is still essential. Without that it'd just be editors repeating their gut feelings about various words at each other forever. This is part of where WP:NOTCENSORED comes into play - editors are not permitted to come up with a list of no-no words we cannot use unattributed ourselves. We can document words that the best sources rarely use unattributed, and generally follow that list as a presumption, but its authority rests solely on the sources and vanishes in contexts where the sources no longer agree with it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Your argument assumes that editors cannot tell the difference between a fact and an opinion. NPOV mandates that opinions aren't reported as facts and vice versa. PARAKANYAA's argument (if I understand correctly) is that some labels are intrinsically opinionated and some are based in fact, which influences how LABEL applies. Katzrockso (talk) 03:39, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Pretty much. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

"my problem with your approach is that you're still basically saying that we, as editors, can and should use our own judgment to determine when something is a "value-laden label" and refuse to use it regardless of sourcing" - yes, that is what WP:OPINION, part of the non-negotiable NPOV policy, is already telling us to do. And yes, that is the case. There are some labels that are inherently opinionated by their nature, and have no meaning besides imparting value. Imparting value is not our job. Plenty of extremely reliable sources refer to things or actions as "good" or "evil", which has no impact on their reliability, but it would be ludicrously non-neutral to carry that judgement over to wikivoice.

"If sufficient high-quality WP:RSes describe someone as a terrorist as if it is a dispassionate description of uncontroversial fact, we are required to do so in the article voice ourselves", no we are not, for the same reason we are not if sources describe something as "evil" or "good" in the same way; WP:OPINION. Does the article describe Osama bin Laden as a terrorist in wikivoice? No, despite many extremely high quality sources doing so. We do not describe ISIS as a terrorist group, nor do we describe Al-Qaeda as a terrorist group, perhaps the two groups on the planet most universally described as terrorist groups. That there is occasionally incorrect or spotty enforcement is not reason to invalidate our policies, or we would have no policies; plenty of articles contain BLP violations, contain improper sources, or have NPOV problems, it does not mean our relevant policies do not exist.

But yes, off topic, and so on. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• There seems to be on ongoing tendency to reduce everything outside mathematics and hard science to opinion, but that is a incredibly narrow view. If an expert on neo-Nazis says Stinetoss is a neo-Nazi, they are stating that as fact not opinion (unless they say "in my opinion ..."), and so Stonetoss is a neo-Nazi and policy requires that we state as much. Some will say "Oh! But everything is an opinion", well if that's true then that is also just an opinion and one that is wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:52, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah it's a big problem that a certain subset of Wikipedia editors seem not to believe in social reality. We can, in fact, identify the politics a person has. Doing so is not, in fact, just an opinion. Social constructivism argues much of reality is in fact social and people take that to mean that much of reality is subjective. This is a failure of understanding. Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

• In-text attribution. I had never heard of StoneToss before this RfC. Viglietta2 is clearly bludgeoning the discussion, but that does not make the underlying argument wrong. Three reliable sources themselves use attribution: the Washington Post says "whom some people describe as a neo-Nazi" and calls the label "a matter of debate"; NBC attributes "neo-Nazi" to Alejandra Caraballo; and the Evening Standard attributes the characterization to GNET researchers. The label should therefore remain prominent, but attributed, with a neutral short description. Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
• Status quo per TarnishedPath, Ethmostigmus, Simonm223, and ActivelyDisinterested. Not seeing anything that disputes this label, widely used in reliable sources. Didn't read all the bludgeoning. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  Simonm223 did not !vote "Status quo".

  Additionally, per Viglietta2's source analysis above, holes are showing in the "widely used in RS" argument - WaPo recanted, Wired and Ars Technica are only GREL on science and technology; atm the only in-scope GREL source using the descriptor in article voice is The Nation, which falls under RSOPINION. ~2026-45627-37 (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  I !voted for a procedural close on the basis that the editor started the RfC without first going through WP:RFCBEFORE and demonstrating there had been a shift in consensus or sourcing since the last RfC. This would functionally support the status quo. So let's not split hairs. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Status quo. Sourcing above overwhelmingly treats it as fact, and the core policy requirement to not state facts as opinions, in WP:NPOV, obviously trumps WP:LABEL. --Aquillion (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

  Per NPOV:

  "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice [...]"

  Even if this were an "uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion" (which it is not, the sourcing is quite rickety for even an attributed mention in the lead at this point), LABEL describes the situations where attribution would be required anyway - which would still be well within NPOV principles, there is no contradiction here. ~2026-46182-58 (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

  OK, so if you're stating that it is contested and controversial, please show the reliable secondary sources in which it is contested and a matter of controversy. Unless you can do so, the usage is entirely NPOV compliant. TarnishedPath^talk 13:09, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Status quo. Attribution dilutes both the informational value and the value-laden quality of the term. Those are important to balance, but given the lack of dispute in reliable sources the informational value should take precedence. Chaste Krassley (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2026 (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.

WP:CITEVAR

Starting discussion here on the referencing style in use in this article as @PARAKANYAA recently reverted some work that @Cdjp1 had done.
While I'm generally not a fan of harvnb referencing, due to it adding a level of overhead and complexity, it does a very good job at dealing with multiple references being used in one citation. At present we have 11 citations on the first sentence, which to be quite frank fucking hurts the eyes. Now there is very good reason for having what has been such a contentious part of the article extremely well referenced; however I think in this situation we can do that and still not be hurting our peepers if we implement harvnb referencing. I suggest we reimplement it.
For anyone wanting to get an idea of what the article looks like with harvnb referencing see Special:Permalink/1369758231. TarnishedPath^talk 13:28, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath None of these citations have multiple different page references so having Harv tags will not fix that issue; it will just go from a cite news ref, to having to click through another reference to see a cite news tag. The only thing it adds is another mouseover requirement. The style Cjdp1 used was also inconsistent, being completely random on whether it used short refs or long refs for identical types of refs, which is an issue for the MOS.

I agree the first sentence is overreferenced but that's separate from the harv issue. You can still have 11 references on one statement while using Harv tags. The harv references do not change this. There are ways to bundle it without shortened footnotes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

The first sentence is excessively cited as a result of editors wanting to head off people trying to change the first sentence based on claims that it is under-cited. I would suggest these citations can be removed if they occur elsewhere in the body and should otherwise stay. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I concur. But if we have to include the 11 refs I'm saying there are ways to include them that is neither the eyesore we are doing now nor changing the citation style to shortened footnotes (which I oppose here because there are no references that cover this over a page range, it just adds an extra mouseover for no reason). PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to stand in the way of aesthetic improvements that retain the necessary citations within the article. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

For example, this edit I just did , is another way to do it that I think is much less complicated, maintains the previous ref style, and doesn't create an eyesore. There are several ways. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

No objection from me. Simonm223 (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

OK, that works for me. I've just made a couple of changes. TarnishedPath^talk 08:35, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Sticking it in a footnote like that is usually the best way to deal with this imo. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:42, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Change the Infobox image

The picture in the infobox should be replaced with his profile picture. It's very common to use the avatar of a person in the case of a BLP not wanting to have a picture of themselves on their article. Here some examples, CGP Grey and Jaiden Animations are people who have free photos of them but have requested the photos not be displayed on their article, both fair use. Esra'a Al Shafei is the same, however her avatar is freely license. While StoneToss hasn't stated anything about not wanting to have a photo of himself, reading the article, it's very clear he wouldn't want to. While the image is copyrighted, and there is no free alternative, it falls under fair use as its the primary means of visual identification (see non-free use rationale). Videogamedunkey is a good example since he has a freely license image for his infobox, however the article also uses his avatar to demonstrate the character he presents on his channel. Same applies here, StoneToss uses the avatar to represent himself, therefor, his profile picture would be the best means for a primary visual identification of the subject. It would also assure the readers that they have reached the right article, compared to the current logo (which is now outdated).

Change My Mind. 1timeuse75 (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @TarnishedPath since they ask me to reach consensus first on the talk page. 1timeuse75 (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we should change the image. The title card is just fine. We don't need some badly drawn doodle even if that is representative of his ouevre. Simonm223 (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

But this is a biography of living person, why should the top image be a title card? The profile picture is more representative of his work. 1timeuse75 (talk) 11:04, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

So what it it's the bio of a living person. It's not his portrait. Simonm223 (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

@1timeuse75 there is a free alternative, the image already in place. TarnishedPath^talk 11:04, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223 (I meant TarnishedPath, see below) Just the word "StoneToss"? How is that a good representation of his work? How would readers know if they reached the right article? Looking up StoneToss on Google, doesn't bring up this "free alternative" as any of the results. Instead the results are ether, one of his comic or his PP. Both are far better primary visual identification of the subject than the current image. @Simonm223 Yes it's not his portrait. Read my first message, "It's very common to use the avatar of a person in the case of a BLP not wanting to have a picture of themselves on their article." Replace "picture of themselves" with "portrait" if you want. While its not a portrait of him, It would be the next best visual identification we have of the subject (that's not a now outdated title card). 1timeuse75 (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Please don't tag me twice in the same post. And, no, we don't have to use his "avatar" this isn't a thing. Do you even have a source saying that white blob is his avatar and not some random other character he drew? Simonm223 (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

@Simonm223 I apologize for pinging you twice in the same post. I mean to ping you and @TarnishedPath, but accidentally pinged you twice. My bad, I will not do it again.

As for your second point, that is StoneToss avatar, he uses it for almost all his social media accounts including Twitter and on his website favicon. As i said earlier, when looking up StoneToss on Google It's one the first results. Now why do I need a source for this being his Pfp? There is currently none for that title card, and for all of the examples in my first message.

Is it his main character? I don't know and I don't care, it's his main Pfp on his platforms and is the best visual identification for the article. 1timeuse75 (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, you can stop pinging me altogether. For the rest, do you have a citation for this? Anything at all? Because "I saw it on Twitter" is not WP:RS compliant. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I won't ping you, sorry again. Can you show me an example of needing a citation for Infobox images? I've personally never seen this in an article before. Look at my previous examples: Esra'a Al Shafei, CGP Grey, where's the citation? By your same logic, should we also remove the title card, there's no citation there too. 1timeuse75 (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm saying that your claim that this image more easily identifies Stonetoss than the title card does requires evidence. Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Correct! However my point is that this isn't done for other articles. Again look at my examples, how do we know if they are also the most easily identifiable image then something else? What's the level of proof we need? I believe the "StoneToss" logo, which isn't even the current logo on the website, is not a good representation of this article. Which is a shame because, outside of the infobox image, I find this article very good, great even. I remember when I first found this article, I was genuinely confused because of the image. It looks like some logo from the 70s, and it doesn't even match the style of the comic. Am i overreacting? I don't know, what do think Simonm? Can there be some better alternative? 1timeuse75 (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

It's his logo. If you think it looks bad that's fine. I think pretty much everything he has ever done looks bad. But I think the title banner is better than some stick person head. Simonm223 (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Not currently, It appears that he changed it to an even arguably worse logo, just a dark blue background on top of white text. However I do think the font dose match his art style funnily enough. That's why I've been saying the logo was "outdated" in my previous messages. 1timeuse75 (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I've had the misfortune of going though the Wayback machine to see when the logo was changed. It was in 2024. With this information, I've uploaded the updated logo to commons. Can we agree on changing it to the new logo? 1timeuse75 (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

As long as it meets our creative commons requirements I have no objection to using an updated titlebar. Simonm223 (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm all good with the new logo. TarnishedPath^talk 15:06, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Dose this mean we reached consensus? 1timeuse75 (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

It's obviously the current image and it would obviously not reach the threshhold for copyright. Is there much more to say about it? TarnishedPath^talk 15:11, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Meant logo, not image. TarnishedPath^talk 15:12, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I've nominated this for deletion as it fails WP:NFCC#7. See Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 September 11#File:StoneToss Profile Picture.jpg. TarnishedPath^talk 15:01, 11 September 2026 (UTC)