Move to Watchtower please

Regarding my warning points for mentioning that an extremist group that is in the news concerning an alledged terrorist plot has a website and it is easily found .
Apart from the fact that I have previously posted a direct link to this particuar groups umbrella organisation (after checking with moderators) .

Is this a new forum rule regarding certain ideologies that I am unfamiliar with ?

If so would that mean that for example .... a topic covering the upcoming elections in Germany would not be able to discuss the group (that I shall not name in case it is against forum rules~;) ) that is expected to gain a seat in Mecklenburd-Vorpommern , mention their idoelogy or their election manifesto ?
Would such a block extend to other groups in those elections like the DVU which isn't quite so neo-nazi , or those on other countries elections like Britains BNP ?
Would it also extend to other nasty groups that are mentioned in the backroom , there have been fairly recently direct links to a KKK website , Phelps god hates fags site , the PKK , several US "militia" and hispanic groups , even a current one that contains a site that links to an Assyrian "nationalist" terrorist site.......the list would just go on and on .
Not to mention both direct links and direct quotes from various nasty Islamic terror organisations , including the posting Al-qaida propoganda videos .

So is this ban on mentioning distasteful ideologies websites "period" a new rule that only applies to neo nazis involved in an alledged terrorist plot that is in the news , or does it extend to all distasteful ideologies , not only in direct links but in the mere mention of their existance ?
Or is it just a moderator acting on a whim ?

There's a bit too much information in this topic. I'm really sorry for the people who behaved in this topic, but I deleted all posts so we start again.

Well, I'm done here anyway since Kukrikhan answered my question. The mention of (links to) objectionable material is permitted on condition that

• it is necessary for the purpose of demonstration
• it is put in spoiler tags
• readers are cautioned about the objectionable content
• in case of doubt mods are consulted

Not quite,kukri told how he handled it.

I for one shall not allow direct links to hate propaganda, porn or violent material, despite the disclaimers or spoilertags, despite the 'educational' purpose behind it.

The org is a friendly forum suited for all ages, hence the forum rules.
I don't want young children finding their way to sites which promote the death of all things black, jew or muslim *(etc.) through a link provided here.

The above was not the case for Tribesman though, he posted the name of a hate group (not a link) and I overreacted. I later removed a warning point and admitted I made a mistake. Case closed as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithrandir

I for one shall not allow direct links to hate propaganda, porn or violent material, despite the disclaimers or spoilertags, despite the 'educational' purpose behind it.

---

Is this going to be the rule from now on?

If so, then I for one will remove my sticky with historical links from the Monastery. Most of those links refer to violent material, hate propaganda against Christians, Muslims, Jews, graphic descriptions of sexual practices, and God knows what else. I am not going to check each and every page in each and every link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Is this going to be the rule from now on?

If so, then I for one will remove my sticky with historical links from the Monastery. Most of those links refer to violent material, hate propaganda against Christians, Muslims, Jews, graphic descriptions of sexual practices, and God knows what else. I am not going to check each and every page in each and every link.

---

I daresay you know what he meant.

:balloon2:

There is a difference in sites which have a historical point of view,a neutral stance so to say, which I hope you used, and sites which activly promote racism.

Besides that, I do not moderate the Monastery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Is this going to be the rule from now on?

If so, then I for one will remove my sticky with historical links from the Monastery. Most of those links refer to violent material, hate propaganda against Christians, Muslims, Jews, graphic descriptions of sexual practices, and God knows what else. I am not going to check each and every page in each and every link.

---

Come on Adrian, it's rather clear what Mithrandir means. Since he is moderating the Backroom, the kind of material he objects to is likely to be current rather than historical.

IMO Mith is applying both the letter and the spirit of the guidelines for the Backroom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithrandir

There is a difference in sites which have a historical point of view,a neutral stance so to say, which I hope you used, and sites which activly promote racism.

Besides that, I do not moderate the Monastery.

---

Dear Mithrandir, the sites in my sticky contain every sort of cruelty, hate propaganda and graphic description that might be objectionable.

As for neutrality of view -- in the realm of historiography no source or point of view is ever neutral. This is why some threads in the Monastery quickly become contentious and end up in the Backroom.

And no, in the sticky I have not confined myself to sites that have a 'neutral stance'. I have chosen sites that add to our knowledge and possibly challenge established views, without going overboard on the rehtoric. Each link is accompanied by a description to show the readers where the site's owners come from, and if need be, a subtle hint that they may represent a far from neutral point of view.

Besides, views aren't necessarily wrong just because they are not neutral.

The entire .Org is about the civilised discussion of fundamentally uncivil issues like war, slaughter, exploitation, prejudice and the sexism of ages. In the Monastery we discuss the pro's and cons of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, to name but two sensitive topics. Another recent example was a thread about antisemitism, which would have gone nowhere had posters not been allowed to refer to concrete instances.

When it comes to such topics and the use of sources, I think presentation is of the essence, not the objectionable nature of the content. It would be a relief ito me f the .Org staff gave this matter another thought.

I'm sorry, I thought you wanted actual clarification, not just make a fuss.

My mistake.

Do whatever you like in the monastery and I'll leave the moderator in charge to decide on wether or not it's in line with what the Org should represent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithrandir

I'm sorry, I thought you wanted actual clarification, not just make a fuss.

---

I want clarificatrion because I, too, have a stake in the .Org website, as I have just made clear.

Hence my general question if Mithrandir's rule is going to apply to the entire .Org,

So from a historical perspective in a backroom discussion Mith , could I take this document and post it ......
Official party manifesto on the position of the National Socialist German Workers Party
with regard to the farming population and agriculture


Munich
6 March 1930

or provide a link to it . (yes it has racist content , something about people of a certain religeon being the cause of problems in agriculture )

I posted it before in the backroom in a topic about the rise of fascism to dispute someones claim that before Hitlers ascent to power it was unlclear to the electorate what he really stood for .
The manifesto clearly shows that they were telling the public what they really stood for before they came to power .

If it would be OK to post such a document in a historical perspective in a backroom topic , then would it not also be acceptable to post a current manifesto from a party in current politics , for example the party I do not name in the opening post , if there was a discussion about those German local elections ?

I just want a little clarity on the situation , as at the moment it is as clear as mud .:shrug:

I think there's a thin line Adrian II, also in the Backroom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TosaInu

I think there's a thin line Adrian II, also in the Backroom.

---

I understand. You suggest that that we give this issue a bit more time to stew, like a good Dutch hutspot, so we can eat it some time in the future. I will abide by that.

Sorry for the fuss, Mithrandir. :bow: