![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Tisane ( talk) 17:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
---
Seriously guys? " It contains white nationalist, white supremacist, Neo-Nazi,[2] and far-right points of view" ... the site contains many other topics of interest too. Way to be fair in representation. Is it because they're not in your pocket?
The result of the move request was: page moved. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Metapedia (encyclopedia) → Metapedia — The parenthetical description is unnecessary. Prezbo ( talk) 23:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence of the Operation section gives the impression that mediwiki is a custom-made system for metapedia. None of the two articles that are referenced mentions mediawiki or mysql. They do mention that metapedia is similar to wikipedia and that they are both based on wiki-technology.
I suggest changing the first sentence from "The operation of Metapedia depends on MediaWiki, a custom-made, free and open source wiki software platform written in PHP and built upon the MySQL database." to "Metapedia uses the wiki package Mediawiki and therefore looks very similar to Wikipedia." Sahedin ( talk) 22:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Why is Metapedia even considered notable? I once tried to edit there to remove bias about another wiki project I work on, and my edits, although factual, were almost immediately removed and I was reprimanded. Considering that compared to Wikipedia and Conservapedia, they have virtually no following, why do we even have an article on them? Tyler Zoran Talk 17:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Website seems to be down. Was it officially taken down or something? Time to past-tense the article, perhaps?
Shrumster (
talk)
09:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the man named Lennart Berg that is heading NSFE Media is the same as the Uppsala University economist Lennart Berg. Are there any sources for this? -- 213.236.196.39 ( talk) 14:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
If follow the reasoning that Metapedia is POV because many other reliable websites describe it as 'Racist/Nazi/Nationalist/etc'; if me and 99 other 'reliable people' were to call you 'Nazi', while you deny being a Nazi, you would be 'pov' and we would be 'right'? Previous statements is nonsense, because ones opinion is never superior to another. Never. Really. The page should be rewritten, this time NPOV. Zonnewiel ( talk) 14:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
It would be good to compile a list of sources and the words (and translations) they use to describe the website. Christopher Connor ( talk) 17:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
If one is a nationalist or national socialist, this means he or she is a sane person. It's nothing to feel guilty for. -- 213.188.116.81 ( talk) 06:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Zonnewiel asked evidences for the statement "White nationalist and white supremacist, extreme right-wing online encyclopedia.": these are evidences. "Multiculturalism is obviously one of the methods of a willingly homeless group, to achieve political and cultural power in all countries by forcing the inhabitants, to tolerate every culture-destroying activity in a different culture disguise." Metapedia: Multiculturalism. "The Communist front of anti-racism (commonly refered to as simply "anti-racism") is a Europhobic politico-ideological movement violently opposed to the self-determination and heritage of ethnic European people all over the world. It is largely promoted as a strategy by Jewish supremacist organisations and degenerated Western Marxists." Metapedia: Anti-racism. Is this opinion equal to any other?
There are three recent articles in the Proquest newspaper articles. Two are in German and the third is in Polish.
The first one is entirely about Metapedia and is about 350 words long. The other two are longer but just mention it briefly. Here are some excerpts from the Google translation of the Nagel article:
Varga article:
Geisler
If anyone wants the originals they can send me an email. Will Beback talk 10:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
In the referenced book:
One can read the following:
On pp. 104/105 it is said
but on page 105
In the table on page 93 with an overview of the various websites the "Primary Movement" concerning Metapedia is identified as "White Nationalist".
So Metapedia is primarily identified as WN, and furthermore, like Tisane pointed to on this discussion page, Metapedia itself says "Asian Mongoloid are probably the most intelligent race on the world", which obviously is not white supremacist.
So I'll revert to the former intro.
84.136.241.77 (
talk)
17:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The wish that ones own people survive and flourish is not about hate. Sticking to the truth is not about hate, too. Sun Tzu made some striking remarks, so why not recite one? And if the Mongoloid race is the most intelligent, then it should be said so – no matter which race oneself belongs to. You are totally on the wrong track if you think Metapedia or (white) nationalism is about hate. -- 213.188.116.81 ( talk) 07:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
For some reason URLs in citations that point to Metapedia have been commented out. I'm not sure why... I'm going to go ahead and un-comment them out because currently all that shows up is the WebCite archives of the URLs which aren't the latest version of the pages. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The ranking by Alexa of Metapedia is rising and rising. It is the most serious threat to Wikipedia. So I guess this “subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia” – i.e. Top-importance on the importance scale. -- 213.188.98.237 ( talk) 23:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
It was alleged by Loddfavner ( [1]) this book did not even mention Metapedia and was WP:FAKE. Google Books ( [2]) has mentions of Metapedia on 11 different pages including the ones mentioned in the citation template. 86.183.59.211 ( talk) 16:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Klein doesn't call Metapedia white supremacists. Additionally his book is poorly written. Klein writes the wrong domain for Metapedia twice as often than the correct one. I'm a lover, not a hater. Only when White people are proud of their heritage and object to become extinct it's called “hate”. Metapedia is part of the truther movement. Besides white nationalism all other links in the See also section are crap. It is not required to be a fascist or a National-Socialist to edit Metapedia. -- 213.188.126.55 ( talk) 14:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Metapedia is not only white supremacist but also Persian supremacist. There are a number of Persian editors who edit the site, and most articles regarding Israel (which they call the "Zionist State in Palestine") are written from a Muslim propaganda rather than a neo-Nazi propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wherefor ( talk • contribs) 23:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Or, we could just ignore Wikipedia's stupid rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wherefor ( talk • contribs) 02:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
An RfC:
Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the
Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. –
MrX
17:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The Metapedia website is down... any news about what happened? Kintaro ( talk) 12:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
This paragraph's language is endorsing Metapedia's framing of the encyclopedia's content: "ideology and philosophy of pro-European people" is what the rest of the world would call "white supremacist ideology." It's also uncited, while the summaries of the site's content later in the article are cited to reliable sources. Wikipedia articles should be based primarily on independent sources, and without coverage by these sources this article would have been deleted. Prezbo ( talk) 20:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Should this be mentioned on the main page?
Mikemikev a former-admin of Metapedia has been vandalizing Wikipedia and posting racism/anti-Semitism for years on over 200+ sockpuppets.
SwordMythite (
talk)
20:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
It looks like a bit of an edit war is going on with regard to this text:
Close ties between Metapedia and the far-right [[British National Party]] (BNP) are also known to exist. In 2013, an administrator on Metapedia with the username ''Atlantid'' wrote an article for the BNP's official website, wherein he complained that the Wikipedia entry on the British National Party was "[[Left-wing politics|leftist]] orientated" and "smear[ed]" the group. He also griped that it was patrolled by individuals who were "heavily biased" against the BNP, and alleged that they were "affiliated with [[Unite Against Fascism]]", among other [[Anti-fascism|anti-fascist]] organizations. Additionally, Atlantid indicated that Metapedia's entry on the British National Party was, by contrast, "positive", and asserted that it aimed to surpass the hits on Wikipedia's BNP entry.<ref name="Bnpom">{{cite web|title=British National Party on Metapedia|url=http://bnp.org.uk/news/national/british-national-party-metapedia|publisher=British National Party|accessdate=18 May 2015}}</ref>
I have to agree with its removal.
It is original research to declare "close ties" based on an administrator writing an article on the BNP website. It's furthermore WP:UNDUE to include it based only on the post itself. We need a secondary source (at least one really good one) to report on the connection before it can be included here. Wikipedia administrators are involved in all sorts of things, and in doing so certainly do not form "close ties" between those other activities and Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Tisane ( talk) 17:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
---
Seriously guys? " It contains white nationalist, white supremacist, Neo-Nazi,[2] and far-right points of view" ... the site contains many other topics of interest too. Way to be fair in representation. Is it because they're not in your pocket?
The result of the move request was: page moved. Ronhjones (Talk) 23:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Metapedia (encyclopedia) → Metapedia — The parenthetical description is unnecessary. Prezbo ( talk) 23:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence of the Operation section gives the impression that mediwiki is a custom-made system for metapedia. None of the two articles that are referenced mentions mediawiki or mysql. They do mention that metapedia is similar to wikipedia and that they are both based on wiki-technology.
I suggest changing the first sentence from "The operation of Metapedia depends on MediaWiki, a custom-made, free and open source wiki software platform written in PHP and built upon the MySQL database." to "Metapedia uses the wiki package Mediawiki and therefore looks very similar to Wikipedia." Sahedin ( talk) 22:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Why is Metapedia even considered notable? I once tried to edit there to remove bias about another wiki project I work on, and my edits, although factual, were almost immediately removed and I was reprimanded. Considering that compared to Wikipedia and Conservapedia, they have virtually no following, why do we even have an article on them? Tyler Zoran Talk 17:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Website seems to be down. Was it officially taken down or something? Time to past-tense the article, perhaps?
Shrumster (
talk)
09:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the man named Lennart Berg that is heading NSFE Media is the same as the Uppsala University economist Lennart Berg. Are there any sources for this? -- 213.236.196.39 ( talk) 14:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
If follow the reasoning that Metapedia is POV because many other reliable websites describe it as 'Racist/Nazi/Nationalist/etc'; if me and 99 other 'reliable people' were to call you 'Nazi', while you deny being a Nazi, you would be 'pov' and we would be 'right'? Previous statements is nonsense, because ones opinion is never superior to another. Never. Really. The page should be rewritten, this time NPOV. Zonnewiel ( talk) 14:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
It would be good to compile a list of sources and the words (and translations) they use to describe the website. Christopher Connor ( talk) 17:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
If one is a nationalist or national socialist, this means he or she is a sane person. It's nothing to feel guilty for. -- 213.188.116.81 ( talk) 06:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Zonnewiel asked evidences for the statement "White nationalist and white supremacist, extreme right-wing online encyclopedia.": these are evidences. "Multiculturalism is obviously one of the methods of a willingly homeless group, to achieve political and cultural power in all countries by forcing the inhabitants, to tolerate every culture-destroying activity in a different culture disguise." Metapedia: Multiculturalism. "The Communist front of anti-racism (commonly refered to as simply "anti-racism") is a Europhobic politico-ideological movement violently opposed to the self-determination and heritage of ethnic European people all over the world. It is largely promoted as a strategy by Jewish supremacist organisations and degenerated Western Marxists." Metapedia: Anti-racism. Is this opinion equal to any other?
There are three recent articles in the Proquest newspaper articles. Two are in German and the third is in Polish.
The first one is entirely about Metapedia and is about 350 words long. The other two are longer but just mention it briefly. Here are some excerpts from the Google translation of the Nagel article:
Varga article:
Geisler
If anyone wants the originals they can send me an email. Will Beback talk 10:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
In the referenced book:
One can read the following:
On pp. 104/105 it is said
but on page 105
In the table on page 93 with an overview of the various websites the "Primary Movement" concerning Metapedia is identified as "White Nationalist".
So Metapedia is primarily identified as WN, and furthermore, like Tisane pointed to on this discussion page, Metapedia itself says "Asian Mongoloid are probably the most intelligent race on the world", which obviously is not white supremacist.
So I'll revert to the former intro.
84.136.241.77 (
talk)
17:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The wish that ones own people survive and flourish is not about hate. Sticking to the truth is not about hate, too. Sun Tzu made some striking remarks, so why not recite one? And if the Mongoloid race is the most intelligent, then it should be said so – no matter which race oneself belongs to. You are totally on the wrong track if you think Metapedia or (white) nationalism is about hate. -- 213.188.116.81 ( talk) 07:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
For some reason URLs in citations that point to Metapedia have been commented out. I'm not sure why... I'm going to go ahead and un-comment them out because currently all that shows up is the WebCite archives of the URLs which aren't the latest version of the pages. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The ranking by Alexa of Metapedia is rising and rising. It is the most serious threat to Wikipedia. So I guess this “subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia” – i.e. Top-importance on the importance scale. -- 213.188.98.237 ( talk) 23:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
It was alleged by Loddfavner ( [1]) this book did not even mention Metapedia and was WP:FAKE. Google Books ( [2]) has mentions of Metapedia on 11 different pages including the ones mentioned in the citation template. 86.183.59.211 ( talk) 16:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Klein doesn't call Metapedia white supremacists. Additionally his book is poorly written. Klein writes the wrong domain for Metapedia twice as often than the correct one. I'm a lover, not a hater. Only when White people are proud of their heritage and object to become extinct it's called “hate”. Metapedia is part of the truther movement. Besides white nationalism all other links in the See also section are crap. It is not required to be a fascist or a National-Socialist to edit Metapedia. -- 213.188.126.55 ( talk) 14:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Metapedia is not only white supremacist but also Persian supremacist. There are a number of Persian editors who edit the site, and most articles regarding Israel (which they call the "Zionist State in Palestine") are written from a Muslim propaganda rather than a neo-Nazi propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wherefor ( talk • contribs) 23:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Or, we could just ignore Wikipedia's stupid rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wherefor ( talk • contribs) 02:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
An RfC:
Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the
Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. –
MrX
17:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The Metapedia website is down... any news about what happened? Kintaro ( talk) 12:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
This paragraph's language is endorsing Metapedia's framing of the encyclopedia's content: "ideology and philosophy of pro-European people" is what the rest of the world would call "white supremacist ideology." It's also uncited, while the summaries of the site's content later in the article are cited to reliable sources. Wikipedia articles should be based primarily on independent sources, and without coverage by these sources this article would have been deleted. Prezbo ( talk) 20:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Should this be mentioned on the main page?
Mikemikev a former-admin of Metapedia has been vandalizing Wikipedia and posting racism/anti-Semitism for years on over 200+ sockpuppets.
SwordMythite (
talk)
20:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
It looks like a bit of an edit war is going on with regard to this text:
Close ties between Metapedia and the far-right [[British National Party]] (BNP) are also known to exist. In 2013, an administrator on Metapedia with the username ''Atlantid'' wrote an article for the BNP's official website, wherein he complained that the Wikipedia entry on the British National Party was "[[Left-wing politics|leftist]] orientated" and "smear[ed]" the group. He also griped that it was patrolled by individuals who were "heavily biased" against the BNP, and alleged that they were "affiliated with [[Unite Against Fascism]]", among other [[Anti-fascism|anti-fascist]] organizations. Additionally, Atlantid indicated that Metapedia's entry on the British National Party was, by contrast, "positive", and asserted that it aimed to surpass the hits on Wikipedia's BNP entry.<ref name="Bnpom">{{cite web|title=British National Party on Metapedia|url=http://bnp.org.uk/news/national/british-national-party-metapedia|publisher=British National Party|accessdate=18 May 2015}}</ref>
I have to agree with its removal.
It is original research to declare "close ties" based on an administrator writing an article on the BNP website. It's furthermore WP:UNDUE to include it based only on the post itself. We need a secondary source (at least one really good one) to report on the connection before it can be included here. Wikipedia administrators are involved in all sorts of things, and in doing so certainly do not form "close ties" between those other activities and Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)