Talk:Metapedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 January 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 18 April 2010, see discussion.
delete, 22 July 2007, see discussion.

Websites: Computing Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Has this version been shown to be "substantially identical to the deleted version" per G4?

Tisane (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has not, I just checked the deleted versions and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metapedia, and this article is substantially different. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this diff, someone notes the irony of Metapedia quoting Sun Tzu, a non-European. But actually, Metapedia seems to express admiration for the intelligence of "orientals." http://en.metapedia .org/wiki/Oriental#Intelligence Tisane (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metapedia (encyclopedia) → Metapedia — The parenthetical description is unnecessary. Prezbo (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Subjects tackled"

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)[reply]

"Pro-European" is probably a stretch; even Angela Merkel would probably describe herself as "pro-European." Tisane ^talk/_stalk 20:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Merkel would be pro-European Union, true. Metapedia's reference to "pro-European" is in the sense of traditional European culture, art, philosophy, achivements, etc and the European people who have created it. Metapedia is also an advocate for the social, economic and political interests of European people. The framing put forward by Prezbo, ie "white supremacism" is in line with an explicitly Trotskyist and Cultural Marxist framing and thus cannot be a neutral point of view. It is extremely hostile to the topic. Trotskyism as an idelogy is both bias against European people (it racially sterotypes them as "evil borgeiouse opressors") and European culture in general, as the creation of a rival group with different interests. - The Champo (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, although of course, Wikipedia is unashamedly biased toward mainstream views, as a matter of policy. Thus, it is to be expected that its coverage of Metapedia and similar topics would be "extremely hostile." Tisane ^talk/_stalk 23:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References to mediawiki

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)[reply]

hello, I just added a further reference. MediaWiki is free software, thus (and people know that) obviously everybody can use it. 217.236.218.7 (talk) 11:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your new reference does mention MediaWiki. My point is that a lot of people does not know that what MediaWiki is, especially since this article currently says that it's "custom-made". I'll remove the offending word. Sahedin (talk)

ok, it's better now 217.236.209.225 (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

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)[reply]

Please take a look at Wikipedia's notability guidelines for websites. Notability on Wikipedia is established based on several types of criteria, one of which is a subject's appearance in non-trivial, independent, published works, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and websites. Metapedia meets that criteria. The latter point you present is irrelevant - it doesn't matter how the site is run or if they have "virtually no following." If a website has appeared in multiple non-trivial, independent, published works, then it is notable. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You are not true, it works. It was probably some temporary dropout. --Dezidor (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lennart Berg

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)[reply]

So to continue the recent edit war...

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)[reply]

Metapedia like Wikipedia are not what we would call a reliable source. Mo ainm~Talk 14:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which significant views from reliable sources do you believe have been excluded from the article? The neutral point of view among reliable sources is that Metapedia is a white supremacist, racist, anti-Semitic and Holocaust denying website. Do you have any reliable sources that disagree? 81.147.155.12 (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that there is room for revisionists on Metapedia, for example Holocaust revisionism. However, that doesn't make it a Neo-Nazi online encyclopedia (which the article is currently stating). Zonnewiel (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supply a verifiable source that backs your assertion. Mo ainm~Talk 14:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion is ever superior to another. And it will never be more than an opinion whether metapedia is a nazi website or not. There are no 'reliable sources'. Zonnewiel (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And good God, you almost sound like George Bush. He also wanted Sadam to prove he was innocent of having weapons of mass destruction. You tell me why it is a nazi website, insteat. I've checked the sources. First one only comes with some quotes, second one is French, third one is German, and this is an English article, so those sources are irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonnewiel (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is not relevant the sources say it is a Nazi website, and until you provide an alternative source which meets our requirements then your opinion isn't relevant either. Also even a cursory glance at an article on it for example the article Nazi throws up this gem of a sentence Nazi, Nazism and Neo-Nazism are political epithets and pejoratives used in propaganda pushed by Marxists, Jewish supremacists and fellow travellers. So good luck finding a source contradicting the Nazi website claims. Mo ainm~Talk 15:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to convince you one more time. First, you are that is defending a certain statement, so you are the one that has to come up with the proper references, defending that statement. No one ever has to prove his own innocence, in steat what usually goes is 'innocent until proven guilty'. So come up with proof. You have no evidence. That's my first argument. Second, no opinion is ever superior to another, what you said is just a statement. So in short, you haven't provided a good reference, and you are unable of providing a good reference as well, since they're also just opinion. Last, I'd like to know if there's some kind of arbitration on this wiki, because i will keep pressing this. Zonnewiel (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy that supports your claim that foreign language sources cannot be used, quite the opposite in fact. If 1 person out of 100 says the Apollo 11 moon landings were faked, does that mean we should say Neil Armstrong allegedly walked on the moon? 81.147.155.12 (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 sources used to back up assertion made in the article and we have you saying different, your opinion doesn't matter we need a source, so as the saying goes "put up or shut up". Mo ainm~Talk 09:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Recent articles

There are three recent articles in the Proquest newspaper articles. Two are in German and the third is in Polish.

Lexikon der rechten Parallelwelt
- lars-marten nagel. Hamburger Abendblatt. Hamburg: Feb 25, 2011. p. 06 (1 page)
Artysci gromia Orbána
- Krzysztof Varga. Gazeta Wyborcza. Warsaw: Feb 1, 2011.
Wie Nazis das Netz besetzen
- ASTRID GEISLER, CHRISTOPH SCHULTHEIS. Die Tageszeitung. Berlin: Jan 22, 2011. p. 34-35

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:

"Metapedia" is a far-right Web site that looks like Wikipedia is not only in social networks, and other platforms of Web 2.0, right-wing extremists are active, they took a pseudo-scientific online encyclopedia called Metapedia that sees the side of Wikipedia confusingly similar. [..] The fact that Himmler wide responsibility for the Holocaust and thus for the murder of more than six million Jews is not mentioned, however. The story is played down, facts omitted Following this pattern, almost every knitted articles. They deal predominantly with the history of playing down the Third Reich. [..] At one point, Holocaust revisionism is presented only as an attempt, "the systematic extermination of some six million Jews during World War II to question, in principle, or to correct substantially. [..] An article rants about the temperature in the gas chambers. Elsewhere, it says "Israel is a Zionist theocracy." The imprint, the company is called NFSE Media AB in Sweden. The page will be provided via a server in the Netherlands into the net and is hosted by the American company Go Daddy. [..] At one point Metapedia differs significantly from Wikipedia. While at the latter site may change without any user most of the articles, he must register with Metapedia first. [..] Unlike Wikipedia can also be with the wisdom of the masses Metapedia not mentioned - in the past three months there only 37 members were active. (Lmn)

Varga article:

Hungarian artists are increasingly becoming targets of the extreme right. The right-wing website Metapedia on the list "of Jews in Hungarian public life, " was even a descendant of an old aristocratic family, the famous writer Péter Esterházy. Director biography posted there, the National Theatre, the director and actor Robert Alföldiego reads: "Jewish actor, director, haters of Christianity class actor sodomite. "

Geisler

With the Internet grows the mass of far-right website. Have long since established their own communities, the extreme right: from the video platform WNtube to the online encyclopedia Metapedia.

If anyone wants the originals they can send me an email. Will Beback talk 10:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White supremacist vs. white nationalist

In the referenced book:

Adam G. Klein (June 2010). A Space for Hate: The White Power Movement's Adaptation Into Cyberspace. pp. 104-105. ISBN 978-1936117079.

One can read the following:
On pp. 104/105 it is said

"Other supremacist sites like Podblanc, Metapedia, and the Council of Conservative Citizens ...",

but on page 105

"Like Podblanc, Metapedia is the alternative form of another modern cyber phenomenon, Wikipedia. This white nationalist website ...".

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)[reply]

There is no need to switch words given the three instances you found in the book. This book is not the only source for "white supremacist". Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"unneeded change" - is that a joke, or what. The change makes it better, more accurate, just look at the referenced book. There's no point in saying "unneeded change". The question is - which description is more precise. Not only Klein identifies its primary movement as white nationalist, the German source also calls it a "nationalist counterpart".

Ok, provide the other sources that call it white supremacist. Without such sources I'll change it. 84.136.241.77 (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]