Talk:TheDonald.win

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 August 2020. The result of the discussion was Merge/Redirect to r/The Donald.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the TheDonald.win redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Add site logo & screenshot to infobox

Someone with upload permissions should consider adding the site's logo: https://i.maga.host/uk4bePU.png As well as a screenshot of the home page: https://i.maga.host/XeewDNW.png --Techied (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize that I could upload these to Wikimedia Commons. All good now. --Techied (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Adil3214 (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thedonald.win → TheDonald.win – The current page title uses incorrect capitalization Techied (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC) --Techied (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Connection to TheDonald.win in Origins section

TheDonald.win is not just another website, it was created by moderators of /r/The_Donald subreddit and promoted specifically because they believed that Reddit would eventually ban the sub. This belief is largely attributed to the fact that every subreddit that has ever been quarantined has eventually been banned, with none so far being un-quarantined. This should be mentioned in the Origins section. --Techied (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added --Techied (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is about a popular website. To meet the requirement for indication of importance, I will reference the number of users and posts the websites receives. It is a surprisingly large number, which makes the website appear notable (at least I think it does). Adil3214 (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is information about the website/forum thedonald.win, which is a popular site among Trump supporters. The site is very popular and thus a wikipedia article is acceptable for a forum of its size and popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolt9094 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alt-Right category

Sergei zavorotko, can you provide some context as to why you added this category? Alt-right says: "The alt-right is a biologically racist movement" however the site's rules specifically state "No Racism" --Techied (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To further clarify, I think that some definitions of the "alt-right" term are accurate and do apply here, however much of the definition provided here by Wikipedia does not apply to the site. --Techied (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original subreddit and website has a lengthy history of associating themselves and being associated with the alt-right. In the similar fashion to how Breitbart News does for instance. Just because some alt-rightists believe in scientific racism doesn't mean the website adheres to scientific racism. Numerous categorizations of the alt-right don't apply to all individuals. The rules also claim "No Racism", but that rule is seldom enforced. Explicit Islamophobia and implicit racism is common throughout. Sergei zavorotko (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original subreddit isn't the forum so saying that its cases of that should be here isn't viable, also there have been many instances of trolls coming onto the site to try and frame TheDonald for racism by making racist remarks and pretending to be a Trump supporter, which may be what you're refering to, also the cases of any alt-right users aren't enough for its own sub-section on wikipedia in the first place. In a large community like this, it's inevitable that there will be atleast one person on the extremes politically, but they make up a HUGE minority of the community and aren't deserving of its own subsection. That'd be like making an alt-right and alt-left section for the republican and democrat parties wikipedia pages because out of the tens of millions registered to each party, a few hundred are in those extremes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolt9094 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your reasoning here, but nonetheless the category applies in some ways, so it makes sense. --Techied (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear that thedonald.win associates itself with the alt-right. We would need sources substantiating this. Also, it is not going to be sufficient to merely find somebody on the internet who calls them "racist" since that is a term that is used indiscriminately in many cases. We would need substantiation of so-called "scientific racism" per above, and given thedonald.win's explicit stance against racism, that seems unlikely. Wookian (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not every individual categorization of alt-right qualifies for all individual members Sergei zavorotko (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is simply no evidence of any ties with the alt-right from thedonald.win, its moderation team or its administrators. The site is not intended for anyone but Trump supporters and has anti-racism rules. "implied racism" seems to be more a matter of opinion than fact, and as such, adding the tag "alt-right" is just misleading, or at worst, an attempt to defame the community. 96.22.191.247 (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, should someone with an anti-semetic user page message ("IPs who make disruptive edits really piss me off. Especially Zionists.") really make unfounded accusations about others being part of the alt-right ? 96.22.191.247 (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, however it is widely regarded as an odious and undesirable characterization, as opposed to a neutral label or category. As such, it should not be lightly applied just because thedonald.win may arguably meet some aspects of how alt-right is sometimes defined. We need much more than a fuzzy partial match. Wookian (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that a reliable source (the Financial Times) has referred to this website as a new online home for the far-right and a magnet for extreme discourse. I think this is worth mentioning in the article. Domeditrix (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to a copy of this article without a paywall so I can read it? --Techied (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to assist users attempting to bypass paywalls. The paywall exists for a considered reason. Domeditrix (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it make more sense though, to say that it has been "referred to as an online far-right home by the Financial Times" in a separate section, than that it is a far-right internet forum in the first paragraph? Notice in the second paragraph, where the Financial Times is also cited, it says that "[thedonald.win] has been labelled 'a magnet for extreme discourse,'" rather than "[thedonald.win] is a magnet for extreme discourse." It seems improper to label a website as factually being something, merely because of a news article's headline, or label. LeftScript (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that, r/The_Donald, even with its copious amounts of media coverage, was not called a "far-right subreddit on Reddit," but was instead referred to as simply "a subreddit on Reddit" in the first paragraph of its article. I think it would be proper to, instead, add a section that talks on how media has received the website, just like r/the_donald has, at the bottom of its article. LeftScript (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This link here, https://i.maga.host/PuyfjDz.png , shows that the reasoning that the source "Financial Times" calls thedonald.win "far-right" is because of a troll message they sent them, therefore the source itself shouldn't be taken seriously. --Bolt9094 (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Original research and "Right-wing" vs "Far-right"

A reminder, as there appears to be a large number of new and inexperienced users editing this article: All content must be verifiable with reliable sources. If readers and editors cannot WP:VERIFY something – e.g. whether members of the forum perceive themselves to be far-right nor not – then it is not included. What is included is based on reliable sources. We must also not seek to reinterpret or 'spin' the content of such sources, e.g. by terming the forum 'right wing' instead of 'far-right', when the RS explicitly chooses 'far-right' and not merely 'right wing'. Furthermore, there is a high volume of editing on this page right now, let's try not to edit war and go to the talk page if there is a clear disagreement. Speaking to @Bolt9094: and @Adil3214: specifically. Domeditrix (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Domeditrix: Your labeling of TheDonald.win as "far-right" is very misleading. The article you cited to come up with this label is titled "Far-right finds new online home in TheDonald.win." This does not, in any way, imply that TheDonald.win is a far-right website. Just because some far-right people have joined TheDonald.win does not mean that most, or even a large portion of the users, are members of the far-right community. If a few ants come into my home, that does not mean that my home is now an "ant-house." At best, you are greatly overestimating the influence and number of alt-right users on TheDonald.win. At worst, you are intentionally trying to smear the name of TheDonald.win. I will AGF and go with the former. With that being said, I believe "right-wing" is a more fitting title than "far-right." Adil3214 (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here as to what Wikipedia is, and thus, implicitly, of WP:WWIN. I have not called the site far-right, an extremely reliable source has. Meanwhile, you have taken it upon yourself to reinterpret / reimagine what the source explicitly says multiple times within the article. I'm not sure you even read the article that you are disputing the content of, as the caption of the article's main picture reads: "The far-right has its own social media spaces, including the forum TheDonald.win, which originated in Reddit". I don't think they could state any more explicitly that this website is a far-right forum. Domeditrix (talk) 10:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say that you live in a neighborhood with 100 households. If 98 White households live in your neighborhood, and 2 Black households live in your neighborhood, would you consider your neighborhood to be a "Black neighborhood?" Probably not. In order for the neighborhood to be considered "Black," a significant majority of the households in the neighborhood would have to be Black. The same thing applies to TheDonald.win. A significant majority of the users have to be far-right in order to consider the website far-right as well. Your source does not state that a significant majority of the users on TheDonald.win are far-right. It says, "The far-right has its own social media spaces, including the forum TheDonald.win." That sentence implies that far-right users are joining/have joined TheDonald.win, but not that they make up a significant majority of the users on the website. This can be explained with the neighborhood example as well. If a lot of Black families move into your neighborhood, so that there are now 25 Black households in your neighborhood, your neighborhood is still not a "Black neighborhood," as the majority of your neighborhood is not made up of Black households. Please quote the part of your article that states that a significant majority of the users on TheDonald.win are far-right. Adil3214 (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a source, no matter how reliable it is, claims or states something, that does not simply make it so. If the source doesn't have evidence for its claim or statement, then the claim or statement is vacuous, and holds no weight. Does the source provide evidence that thedonald.win is a far-right forum, outside of a mere claim/statement? If not, I do not see how that source is reliable for such a statement. LeftScript (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VNT. Domeditrix (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simply quoting WP:VNT really doesn't help me to understand what you're trying to tell me. Would you be willing to point out a specific portion of WP:VNT that you are thinking of? From WP:VNT: "The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" meant that verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though it is not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough). Sources must also be appropriate, and must be used carefully, and must be balanced relative to other sources per Wikipedia's policy on due weight." To me, this means that though something is verifiable, such as the Financial Times article, it does not mean that the fact it's verifiable alone is sufficient to include it. Again, I don't understand the purpose of quoting WP:VNT to me, especially since it's not even one of Wikipedia's guidelines or policies. LeftScript (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to need to come up with an argument that is more convincing to other editors as to why we should completely disregard what the FT has to say and instead go along with your fancies. Domeditrix (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that what the Financial Times has to say should be discarded; it should be included. How it's included matters, however. It would be proper to state elsewhere in the article that it has been referred to, classified as, or called a far-right forum by the Financial Times, as that would be an accurate representation, instead of stating it is a far-right forum. LeftScript (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here is disregarding what the FT has to say. It's just that the FT does not state that TheDonald.win is a far-right forum. You still haven't been able to quote the part of the FT article that states that a significant majority of the users on TheDonald.win are far-right, or that the core principles of TheDonald.win align with the far-right. Please quote the FT article, because it is paywalled and AFAIK you are the only one who has access to it. Adil3214 (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To add on to the last paragraph, I would like to mention that the FT titled the article "Far-right finds new online home in TheDonald.win" based on a conversation with a moderator on TheDonald.win, zettapede. This picture was posted on TheDonald.win recently: https://i.maga.host/PuyfjDz.png. I do not know how obvious this appears to those unfamiliar with TheDonald.win, but zettapede was definitely trolling the FT. An article that claims members of the far-right are flocking to TheDonald.win based on a troll attempt should not be taken seriously in its claim. The claim that TheDonald.win is "a magnet for extreme discourse," however, should still be included because it is not based on a statement which was obviously intended to troll (At least I think that's the case. Keep in mind I still don't have access to the article because it is paywalled). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adil3214 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content

IRRELEVANT

The AfD has been closed as redirect. Username⁶⁸⁹² 16:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Instead of edit warring, let's discuss here please. Paging JzG (talk · contribs) Bolt9094 (talk · contribs) Domeditrix (talk · contribs)

The basis for the removal is: It's unsourced or self sourced

There is no other source for this information, and much of it is simple fact that can be verified by any user visiting the site. Much like the second paragraph of YouTube, there is no source because it's just how the site works. No news outlet would want to report on "How YouTube works" despite YouTube's popularity. --Techied (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are multiple independent sources covering, for example, the increasing of YouTube's upload limit (among other far smaller features). The reason that these are not cited in the article's lead paragraphs is that they are cited elsewhere. Domeditrix (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sources saying that, why aren't they there, also it takes a good few minutes to make an account, go onto thedonald.win, and hit an upvote button on a post to see the bricks go up, or if you already have an account it takes just a few seconds. It's just basic stuff that is being listed on the article. It's like saying you need a source that says that when you type into the YouTube search bar and hit enter, results come up related to what you searched. --Bolt9094 (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, the removal of the whole "Site Overview" section is drastic. Again, much of this can easily be verified (Aside from the site statistics, which nobody other than the site administrators have access to, and I grant you, could be fake). Nobody reports on that because it doesn't make headlines "BREAKING: SITE ALLOWS USERS TO SIGN UP FOR FREE" --Techied (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Techied, if nobody will report on something because it's too generic, then it is not notable for inclusion in this article. Also, self-sourced statistics may be inflated. Username⁶⁸⁹² 18:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It can't possibly be a relevant detail that's worth mentioning unless some newspaper has reported on it? There's no gray area here...? What a joke --Techied (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Techied, If you can find any reliable source that mentions (even passively) that the signup process of the website is free, then it has been verified by an RS. Username⁶⁸⁹² 18:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's not worth mentioning to a newspaper. That shouldn't mean that the information is irrelevant. --Techied (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question: If it's relevant information for the article, why would reliable sources ignore it or consider it not worth mentioning? Username⁶⁸⁹² 18:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because the news doesn't report about TheDonald.win, it reports about controversies surrounding it, other topics about it. It would not be important for the article to mention the signup process, or how the site works. This page is about TheDonald.win, not just controversies or newsworthy pieces of information. --Techied (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Techied: the first source I looked at mainly described its similarities to Reddit and the moderators' reasoning for making the site. My thinking is that whether it's free or paid is only relevant if it is unusual in that way (which this site is not, even the article on Twitter doesn't mention being free as a stand-alone statement). I think the part that was reverted can be partially verified, but it should be cut down a lot. Username⁶⁸⁹² 18:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Techied, Wikipedia is not here to fix the fact that reliable sources do not cover your favourite thing. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does every bit of information on Wikipedia require a reliable source? If so, most of Wikipedia would need "citation needed," or to simply be gutted due to a lack of available reliable sources. LeftScript (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.