# Talk:The Daily Stormer

I don't think we should have the URL for a website as dangerous as this in the infobox. Even though it was included in good faith, we should not be helping people find this site. There is no encyclopaedic purpose for its inclusion Stephanie921 (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

There is currently an RFC ongoing on Talk:Kiwifarms over this very issue, though it is more about the BLP issues there, I don't think this site is much better. It should also be noted that this website has been kicked off most major hosts and is now continuously hopping between host (hence the as of [date] in the infobox). Because of this, by keeping that link up to date, we risk giving users looking to return an easy way to do so by keeping the link up to date. Not a good thing, in this particular case. Also, I question how a continuously changing URL qualifies as E in the first place. EDIT: I've just BRD'd it out. Besides me there has been no discussion about it on this page since the original comment was posted and it's been long enough since.   Licks-rocks (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
We pretty much always include a link to a website on an article about a website. I think this type of censorship sets a dangerous precedent as Wikipedia policy is to not censor. As vile as much of the content is on this website, it is still Constitutionally protected free speech under the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
1. pretty much is not good enough
2. The first amendment does not apply to corporations Phoub327 (talk) 07:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not legally bound by the First Amendment, BUT Wikipedia policy explicitly references U.S. law in its policy against censorship, implying that Wikipedia allows all content that is legally protected free speech in the U.S., which this clearly is. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
@Phoub327: The first amendment does not apply to corporations - I don't want to get off topic, but taken as so simply stated, that is false. There are several clauses, so given the current discussion, I'd assume you're speaking specifically of the free speech clause rather than assembly, establishment, press, or something else (but you did not state that specifically). But assuming that, you'd still need to explain what you mean by "does not apply", because a number of SCOTUS cases would disagree with you (such as Citizens United v. FEC).  So really, what's your point? ButlerBlog (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
@Butlerblog: I don't want to argue much more about this anymore and you are obviously more well read than me but I will say that not giving someone a platform is not the same as taking away their platform, and by providing this link we expand this platform Phoub327 (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Phoub327 is exactly correct. To put it in wikipedia's own words:
" The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws that regulate an establishment of religion, or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances."
Wikipedia is not the government and it makes no laws. Or, to put it in the first amendment's own words:
"Congress shall make no law".
Are we the American congress? No? thought so.
By the way, you do realise the FEC is part of the American government right?  Licks-rocks (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
As far as I know no law relating to free speech in the US requires you to allow someone to speak. Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
@Licks-rocks: That's a cute retort, but completely misunderstands the point. There is a need for clarity in their statement: The first amendment does not apply to corporations.  That's not the same as saying The your first amendment rights are not guaranteed to be upheld by corporations, which, based on your response would indicate that's what you inferred.  But as written, it actually implies the opposite meaning - that 1st Amendment freedoms do not apply to corporations.  I was asking for clarity on what their point was because it was not clear what they meant by that including it in the initial response. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Either way, what matters here is wikipolicy, not the US constitution. I think there's a solid argument that this falls squarely under WP:PROBLEMLINKS.  Licks-rocks (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
As I state above, Wikipedia policy explicitly references U.S. law in its policy against censorship, implying that Wikipedia allows all content that is legally protected free speech in the U.S., which this link clearly is. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
it's hardly dangerous. Merely controversial. Out of interest, what danger could derive from Andrew Anglin's schizophrenic quoting of MSM publications and China worship? 2A00:23C6:D603:8001:934C:F25:2DA0:6B31 (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
The link from this Wiki article is the only reason a lot of people probably even know what URL Dailystormer is on (who seriously would have guessed that .in is seriously the suffix for a white supremacist website), and Dailystormer is a lot more violent than something like Stormfront. I think we should get rid of the link.
Wikidude87654321 (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Wikidude87654321Wikidude87654321

You need a policy-based reason, rather than something that is based solely on your opinion (regardless of whether I, or anybody else shares that opinion). ButlerBlog (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Dailystormer openly promotes a second Holocaust of Jews. That's far beyond some generic "white nationalist" website like Stormfront.
I'm not sure how promoting genocide is even legal
~~Wikidude87654321~~.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidude87654321 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 

In the U.S. there has to be a credible, imminent threat for it to constitute illegal speech. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The correct URL for this web site is http://www.dailystormer.io 2601:6C0:C200:160E:D055:EB03:3159:D7C4 (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: I am declining to fulfill this request under the rationale that it is controversial per the second consideration of WP:EDITXY. There is stated opposition to such an edit in the above section Talk:The Daily Stormer#Link and the result of a an RfC at the Kiwi Farms page shows that the community has an interest (though not necessarily a broader consensus) in not providing links to websites that may result in external harassment. —Sirdog (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the Kiwi Farms precedent is directly applicable here. The type of harassment done on Kiki Farms is illegal and unprotected. But from what I can gather, the speech on Daily Stormer, as vile as some of it is, doesn't violate U.S. law and is therefore constitutionally protected free speech. Thus, as Wikipedia is not censored as a matter of policy, I think a link to the website should be included in the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I should point out that Wikipedia is not beholden to the free speech amendment. That only applies to the American government. The Wikimedia foundation can censor whatever it wants if it so chooses. Furthermore, "Wikipedia is not censored" does have some exceptions, and should not be treated as a blanket permission to include anything in an article. The Kiwifarms discussion wasn't decided on the fact that anything on that site was illegal, it was decided on wiki-policy, namely WP:PROBLEMLINKS.(if it were just about legality this link would have been gone long, long ago.) Licks-rocks (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
As I state above: "Wikipedia is not legally bound by the First Amendment, BUT Wikipedia policy explicitly references U.S. law in its policy against censorship, implying that Wikipedia allows all content that is legally protected free speech in the U.S., which this clearly is." Rreagan007 (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Link? Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Should the website link be included in the infobox? 142.167.26.214 (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it should. Wikipedia is not censored, and it is not our job to "protect" people from links to offensive speech. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
It is not a matter of censorship; Andy can rant all he likes. The question is whether Wikipedia should promote his site and direct people to it. The First Amendment does not guarantee you a right to have free promotion and advertising on other people's space, and it is morally questionable for Wikipedia to promote his site by including a link to it. 216.154.12.242 (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
It is routine for a Wikipedia article about a website to include a link to that website. So not including a link to the website in the article would be an act of censorship by Wikipedia. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

He faces up to 2 years in prison. [1] 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:7094 (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

He has now been sentenced. The judge rejected the joint submissions of prosecution and defence, and decided the severity of the crime required a longer sentence. He was given 15 months in prison, plus probation conditions on his release.
Morris, Erika (September 22, 2023). "Montreal neo-Nazi sentenced to 15 months in jail for inciting hatred". CBC. Retrieved 23 September 2022.
Cherry, Paul (September 22, 2023). "Judge sentences Montrealer to 15-month prison term for spreading hate against Jews". Montreal Gazette. Retrieved 22 September 2023.
"A judge in Montreal decides three months of jail time is less than this Jew-hater deserves—and he found the apology 'opportunistic'". The Canadian Jewish News. 2023-07-13. Retrieved 2023-09-23. 216.154.12.242 (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe adding every adjective in the lead section is kind off disruptive. I believe removing them and mantaining "neo-Nazi" and "White supremacy" are the only adjectives that should be there since those includes all the other ones. I've never heard a pro-semitic, far-left or anti-misogynist neo-nazi. 2800:200:ED80:1A0:9C40:DC56:5ABA:1453 (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of leads like that, and just as many editors who, unfortunately, feel that it somehow proves a point to stick every label they can "prove" into the opening sentence. It degrades readability and is poor writing style.  In this case, all of those labels are presuppositional to the label "neo-Nazi".  But if you remove them, a bevy of editors will shout "These are well sourced" regardless of the pedantic writing style. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
to be fair, Anglin is noteworthy (and made fun of in even SIEGEist circles) for his white sharia fantasies. 2A00:23C6:D603:8001:934C:F25:2DA0:6B31 (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
so I think the "Misogynist" part is vindicated by Wiki standards 2A00:23C6:D603:8001:934C:F25:2DA0:6B31 (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I Agree we should not have this number of labels, just "far-right" should be enough. Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. We can just say neo-Nazi. Do we need every ism under the sun? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
I made this point years ago and my talk page comment was even deleted by an activist Wikipedian. I read an article that starts out with such an obviously non-neutral POV and I assume every bit of it is a lie. The way it is now in 2025 is a lot better, but still reeks of POV bias. "The Daily Stormer is an American neo-Nazi commentary and message board website that advocates for a second genocide of Jews." I cannot find any Leftist articles that have such language in the very first sentence. The fact that activist editors are allowed to insert their bias into the first sentence like this is one of the reasons intelligent people don't take Wikipedia's claimed neutrality seriously. Put such detailed info in the second sentence, like any sane person would.
I shouldn't criticize without offering a solution, so here is the 8chan article lead, which is much better; this intro seems neutral to me: "8kun, previously called 8chan, Infinitechan or Infinitychan (stylized as ∞chan), is an imageboard website composed of user-created message boards. An owner moderates each board, with minimal interaction from site administration. The site has been linked to white supremacism, neo-Nazism, the alt-right, racism, antisemitism, hate crimes, and multiple mass shootings."Rip-Saw (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)