Talk:StoneToss

His name
His name is public knowledge and should be posted. 2601:646:8084:B650:BCDE:D8C3:CBAD:E13F (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Source? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please refer to Talk:StoneToss/Archive 1 where this was discussed. TarnishedPathtalk 04:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The gist is that we need reliable sources that say "this is his name" rather than "this is alleged to be his name". Simonm223 (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Let’s just change the title of the article from “StoneToss” to “Hans Kristian Graebener” now that we know he’s behind StoneToss. Why are we being all Secret Squirrel about literal Nazis?69.126.152.175 (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, it's not fully confirmed what his name is - but at any rate, WP:COMMONNAME applies, and his common name is StoneToss. — Czello (music) 15:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn’t it a bit different when the person is a literal Nazi hiding behind a pseudonym? 69.126.152.175 (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, that wouldn't be WP:NEUTRAL. We normally always use the name they are most commonly known by; and again, I don't believe it's proven that the name above is his. — Czello (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 16:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not different at all. —Alalch E. 22:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I wanted to note that common name refers specifically to article titles, not the name used within an article, and the reasoning used in common name is reasoning specifically about article titles. Googleguy007 (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It is absurd to exclude the name Hans Kristian Graebener from the article, given that his identity has been widely reported now. This is like if we refused on include the name Chaya Raichik from the Libs of TikTok article. Regardless of the means by which the name was originally exposed, it's out there now and widely reported. As for "not fully confirmed"? StoneToss's own actions (going to Elon Musk and getting him to prohibit mention of the name on Twitter, with a new rule prohibiting the exposure of real names) are pretty strong confirmation, I'd say. After all, if it's not actually his real name, then the rule Elon implemented on his behalf wouldn't make any sense. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Redxiv unfortunately,  making that inference would be WP:SYNTH and should be avoided.  We need, honestly,  more than one reliable source to validate that he is behind the pseudonym, regardless of how likely it might be. Simonm223 (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Per Simonm223, your inferring that it must be his real name because he went to Elon doesn't cut it when it comes to adding material to Wikipedia articles. Please refer to WP:NOR and more specifically WP:SYNTH. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 23:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not how this works. The sources used in the article make it quite clear that this is an unconfirmed allegation:
 * "NBC News has not confirmed the identity of the person behind Stonetoss [...] hundreds of X users were posting the alleged name of Stonetoss this week"
 * "The Daily Dot is declining to name the individual cited as StoneToss as the reporting has not been independently verified"
 * "According to Anonymous Comrades Collective, the group was able to tie numerous old online accounts, audio livestreams, and GamerGate-era photographs to StoneToss and his alleged real-life identity as a Texas-based IT consultant [...] StoneToss was started in 2017 by an anonymous individual, allegedly Graebener"
 * "X has locked and suspended the accounts of journalists and researchers who shared the alleged identity of a neo-Nazi cartoonist known as Stonetoss"
 * In the absence of reliable sources confirming and widely reporting his identity, including this name in the article would fall foul of WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:NOR. The fact that Twitter policy changed in response to this debacle is not adequate evidence and clearly constitutes original research. StoneToss (and the person alleged to be him) would likely also be considered low-profile individuals in this context, so WP:NPF probably applies: "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care". Ethmostigmus (talk) 07:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Neo nazi
Lol seriously i know he is antisemitic but seriously 86.114.207.170 (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes – because sources predominately call him such. See . — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 20:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We did actually two separate reviews of the reliable sources we could find on him and it was clear that the most neutral and accurate reflection of how to refer to Stonetoss was as a neo-Nazi. We measured twice on that one and then held an RFC because assigning such a label to a BLP is not something to do lightly. But, yeah, according to reliable sources, the guy's a neo-nazi. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * While I can agree there's sufficient evidence to include the term "neo-Nazi" in this article, I do feel the opening sentence could be rephrased a bit. As far as I'm aware, StoneToss hasn't exactly gone out of his way to define his views, so while his comics can be a reflection of his beliefs, given their "satirical" nature (whether or not you find them funny), it's hard to determine the extent to which he himself believes what he publishes. I think the term could better be applied to the comics themselves, since they are the source of the relevant viewpoints.
 * For example the introduction could instead read something like:
 * "StoneToss is a pseudonymous American political cartoonist who publishes a webcomic of the same name. The webcomic is often criticized for promoting neo-Nazi ideologies because its use of racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, and antisemitic views, including Holocaust denial, as part of its humor. V3513504 (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We had a RfC about this and determined that on the basis of reliable sources that he should be referred to directly as a neo-Nazi. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 01:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would suggest reading the RfC on this topic. The article uses the specific phrasing "neo-Nazi political cartoonist" as a reflection of the available sources, the majority of which refer to StoneToss (the person, not the webcomic) as a "neo-Nazi cartoonist". Ethmostigmus (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

"what the author claims is 'edgy humor'"
But later in the article somebody else (Hart) is quoted as saying that the cartoons rely on "edgy humor". So the scare quotes here are not necessary. We could just say it is edgy humor. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:4CAA:BCDD:9F67:12FA (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * In all the sources where the term "edgy humor" appears, it does so within quotation marks. So no couldn't just say it, because a} reliable sources don't and b) it's not correct. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 08:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have updated the body to more closely reflect the sentence in source. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Going further: We don't have a source attributing to Stonetoss a statement such as "my cartoons rely on edgy humor", and that's the claim made in the lead (X, being Stonetoss, said Y), but the claim isn't supported. The body claim is supported: Hart says "edgy humor" is involved, as part of her independent critique. The body has it right and the lead has it wrong. Still not in sync and needs more work. —Alalch E. 09:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm. "Creator says" would have to rely on the Daily Dot article (3rd ref). Not sure what the Wired article verifies. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I missed that part of the Daily Dot article. By the way, this is the edit that introduced the current language: Special:Diff/1215674093. Edit: Wired verifies "simple and colorful imagery".—Alalch E. 09:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So right now we are effectively saying that StoneToss said that he uses "edgy humor" and that he did so using the exact words "edgy humor", but this is not true. StoneToss did not say that he uses "edgy humor", the "antifa redditor" CriticalResist8 did. The Daily Dot article summed up the following excerpts of a reddit post:"'It’s not mild conservatism, it’s exactly the kind of shit we saw in Nazi Germany building up before they started deporting everyone,” CriticalResist8 continues . “To be clear: if you consider yourself right-wing, either centre-right, or classical liberal, or libertarian or whatever, you have to distance yourself from the fascists who purposely try to make themselves look moderately right with edgy humor.'"as"According to these antifa redditors, the Stonetoss comics are much more sinister than the “edgy humor” their creator says they are."and when making his editorialization the Daily Dot writer made it look that StoneToss said something to the effect of "I use edgy humor", but that is an insertion by the journalist.Still, StoneToss is indeed using "edgy humor", according to Hart. But he did not say something to that effect. His work is critiqued, by the antifa redditor and by Hart as relying on edgy humor to package odious tropes.—Alalch E. 10:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hart also got "edgy humor" from the same reddit post by CriticalResist8 (relevant text in her article links to it) which is why she put it in quotation marks. —Alalch E. 10:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Both the Daily Dot writer and Hart sum up the same reddit post. Hart, being a more capable critic (Ph.D., expert) than the WP:DAILYDOT writer, sums up the reddit correctly, whereas the latter overeditorializes and uses language imprecisely so as to make it seem that Stonetoss used the exact language "edgy humor". (In reality, it is of course more likely than not that Stonetoss did refer to himself sometime someplace as "edgy"; it's statistically much less likely that he used the exact words "edgy humor"). —Alalch E. 10:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I say just remove it. We shouldn't be saying a neo-Nazi holocaust denial comic is humorous without several extremely reliable sources (which we don't seem to have), and we shouldn't be quoting from a reddit user (or quoting from sources that quote a single reddit user). Elspea756 (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same. Removed. —Alalch E. 12:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably the best. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 00:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Concur. Let's just cut the supposed humour statement. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This part is good and shouldn't be removed: Special:Diff/1224958931 ("Hart wrote that, while internet users on the left have been trying to appropriate the cartoons, adding "layers of irony", the subversion of their message is not easily understood by most.") —Alalch E. 14:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with Alalch E., removing the "edgy humor" part is a good call, but I think the bit about whether attempts to "reclaim" StoneToss comics truly subvert the source material is definitely worth keeping. Ethmostigmus (talk | contribs) 04:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's fine. Mine was just a first sketch anyway. No concerns with this refinement. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)