Talk:The Lightning and the Sun

message: I added the link to this public book (as far as I know all national socialist books are public domain under fair use law) The Lightening and the Sun, is defacto public domain due to its deep connection to National Socialism. This link was removed on this article and Humus sapiens censored the link. Can anyone else see a pattern here? Are people oblivious to what is going on here in a concerted manner?
This book link is located on...
http://www.solargeneral.com/library/lightningsun.pdf
Humus Sapien in a biased manner removed a valid link.
Lokison 08:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reverted some edits made by an editor named Schwalker which amounted to nothing more than censorship. Will be keeping an eye on this page. David H. Goldstein (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship of The Lightning and the Sun on Wikipedia by Humus sapiens 

message: The book is nowhere to be found at solargeneral.com. No one "removed a valid link". Copy-paste of the url provided by Lokison just opens up the homepage of a run-of-the-mill hate site. The only books listed there are the usual uninteresting witches' brew of proto-Nazi, Nazi, and neo-Nazi crap. 
69.119.32.105 (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Censorship? 

message: Why are multiple publishers being listed for this book with emotional power-words attached to them? If it is necessary to include terms such as "neo-Nazi," "white supremacist," then why should these publishers be listed at all? If these words provide accurate descriptions of the publishers, then they are obviously not worth anyone's attention, otherwise their descriptions would sound less deliberately-offputting, right?
I think that either the emotional words should be discarded and the publishers simply listed, or they should not be listed at all, and if it is true that these are far-right, white supremacist, neo-Nazi publishers, then the second option sounds like the right one. What currently stands doesn't seem right to me. Toppest Account (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, the nature of the publishers (which are far from controversial -- it's not like someone is calling Penguin a "white supremacist publisher", these are publishers with specific political agendas that they do not hide) are informative to the reader, showing that the book, despite being re-published in an abridged edition, for instance, has not entered the mainstream.  It remains entirely on the far-right fringe, which is made clear with those descriptors.It's quite true that we are an enyclopedia and not a WP:PROMOtional medium, but we are an encyclopedia, and we provide information about the subjects of our articles. For articles about books, a publication history, abbreviated if necessery, is absolutely standard, and there's no reason that tis book, vile as it appears to be, should be different.  If you think that we shouldn;t have an article about it at all, feel free to nominated for AfD -- it won't be deleted, I can assure you.In any case, I moved the publication history from the lede, which it did not belong, into a separate section in the body. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing of Publishers