Talk:Hal Turner

Question

how is he running a webcast from his home WHILE he's in jail? can somebody fix that? either he's in jail or he is not in jail, it can't be both, and that intro implies both. and yes u can delete my 2 cents after u do something about it. also, person below me: "I heard him say it with my own words"..... please read what u type before submitting it, out loud, to urself. and just say as of (date) the show is/isn't online.... sheesh.

HAL TURNER SHOW OFFICIALLY ENDED

Check his site. I tuned in, and he said that his show is now going off air, and that he is no longer a white nationalist. I heard him say it with my own words. They're on the front page! This is big!Groar! (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I was actually working on a novel using Turner as a base character type, and he went off the air. So I checked a few other WN sites and it turns out that Hal was working for the FBI. The ironic thing was, that was kinda the point of my novel, using very outspoken people as government stools. (Well, not government in my novel, but.. still.) Weird. Redcard (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's hope you find a good proof reader to edit your novel, just in case it makes it to the presses. Your prose is a bit far from perfect, you know. --AVM (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

His site, halturnershow.com is back up and he has started doing his radio show again. this article needs to be updated. 24.13.180.243 (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding NPOV

I think, regardless of our personal beliefs, that we can all agree Hal Turner is a controversial figure. By definition, at least to me, there can not possibly be a NPOV on a controversial figure. I think that instead of trying to keep the article neutral, we should keep it balanced, presenting the viewpoints of both his supporters and detractors. Trying to keep this article neutral will inevitably silence one side of the debate and no one should be silenced for any reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.101.139 (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Lack of NPOV?

I think the line "However, the 'raid' did not garner many numbers, and turned out to be a non-event" shows a lack of NPOV. For one, there is no source for the statement. Two, most channers claim that the whole point was to make Hal paranoid and overreact. Not that there'd be a WP-approved source for that particular statement either, but it raises questions about the neutrality of that sentence. --67.38.153.11 05:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I came here to learn about who this Hal Turner person is, and the writers of this wiki couldn't maintain a neutral point of view for one paragraph. I wish the article would be editable to clean up matters of some author's opinion.

Protection?

The world needs to know the full truth about Hal Turner. Unprotect Hal's entry immediately before it is too late!

The protection is there to stop biased, non-NPOV edits by non-registered users. Registered users can still edit it.GovernmentMan 18:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Truth

You guys are being way too soft and polite with this guy. The article, while trying to be "neutral" and "unbiased", makes this f*cktard look like a normal human being. We know he isn't. F*ck being politically correct. That's why you Wikipedos are frowned upon on the rest internet --201.246.226.215 08:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

HERE THE TRUTH ABOUT HAL TURNER OUT OF A RADIO HOST WHO IS REALLY TICKED AT HAL TURNER THEM MY ADVICE IS TO GO TO WWW.ROCHESTERRADIOSTATION.BRAVEHOST.COM CLICK ON NEWS AND THEN NEWS YOU CAN USE AND READ THE STORY ABOUT HAL TURNER I HAVE FROM A GOOD SOURCE THAT OWNER WAS THE OWNER OF LIGHTENING RADIO AND HAL TURNER FORCED HIS WEBSITE TO SHUT DOWN LAST YEAR.AND HAL TURNER HAS ALSO THREATEN CONGRESS AND POSTED PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT SENATORS HOME ADDRESSES AND HOME PHONE NUMBERS.1 PERSON IS BEING INVESTAGTED I HEARD.AFTER THIS IDIOT POSTED A THREAT ON HAL TURNERS COMMENT BOARD.AND IF YOU GO TO THESE LINKS YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE ATORY ABOUT HAL TURNER ALSO OH AND ONE MOE THING HAL TURNER IS A CHREDATOS ALSO TO HAVE THEM JOIN THE KKK AND THE ARYAN NATION AND THE NATIONAL SKINHEADS .THERE WAS REPORTS ABOUT SOME OF THESE RACIST GROUPS ARE CHILD MOLESTERS AND PERVERTS

THE THREE LINKS ABOUT THIS SCUMBAG

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53245

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52680

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52689

This is exactly the type of person who refuses to abide by the NPOV rules of Wikipedia. The simple fact is that these people who have so much hatred burning in their soul for Hal Turner have to resort to petty name-calling, harassing his family and attempted DoS attacks on his server. They have no valid argument, hence the lashing out. WickedEncyclopedia 06:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV rules tend to protect people from unjust attacks. Fine. Trouble is, they also protect bastards from being called bastards. It's a sad truth about Wikipedia that there will always be a plentiful supply of self-appointed vigilantes, good-intentioned or not, who will immediately and zealously react against and revert an edit of, say, Fidel Castro's article calling him what he really is, a dictator. Also sadly, most of such vigilantes often are completely ignorant of the applicable historical facts, so we have (along the same example) a Norwegian kid reverting edits about Fidel Castro made by a Cuban expatriate who lived in Cuba at the time of the Cuban revolution, suffered the horrors of the communist dictatorship that Castro implanted, lost relatives at the Paredón, and lost all his property upon leaving his homeland for good; the Norwegian youngster administering the final insult: he delivers a sermon on WP:NPOV policy, because the Cuban editor didn't supply proper "references" or "citations" about facts the whole world is well aware of. It's nauseating. Perhaps if Wikipedia was based in a country less dominated (or better, harassed) by lawyers than the USA, then saying THE TRUTH would be more important than saying polite, tactful, NPOV-correct, mild, harmless, non-offensive, and hypocritical statements about people, or than "adequately sourcing" said truth. --AVM (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Racist Edits

Can we do something about the constant racist edits? People talking about "black savages" and the thing in references about "Jewish Censorship". I don't know how to edit the references. Also, can we get S-Protection on this page?

Adam Reimar?

Why is there a picture man called Adam Reimar who was allegedly questioned about the raid even though there is no source or evidence suggesting so? It looks like some guy just uploaded his pic to the page. Alexgmcm (Not signed in)

No raid was mentioned in the article, so why is there a picture referencing it? 66.190.69.243 05:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the image. -- Jmax- 09:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

The quote in the section is incorrect. Where it says "for the laughs", it should instead say "for the lulz". The current misquote is akin to writing the famous Bushism as "[t]hey underestimated me." 69.37.50.79 08:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to its truthful form. we do indeed attack 4 the lulz, not the laughs. laughs are worthless. ONX 22:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Are there any sources on the feud with prank callers? Hal Turner took down most of the pages that started this mess, threads on 4chan's /b/ die in an hour or two, and the thread on 7chan's /i/ aren't going to stay up forever. We should find a some reliable sourcing on this "lol Internet war". --Transfinite 17:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a neutral source but its a source: http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Hal_Turner Take the ******* out of the middle, its blocked by wiki. SACP 09:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Encylopedia Dramatica is blacklisted at the software level and banned by the arbitration commitee. I was hoping for something that can actually be cited. --Transfinite 19:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)--Transfinite 05:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up the citations with Template:Web cite. I had a edit conflict with User:Jbs36, I just copy-pasta'd copy-pasted the content in. (as a side note, this is what I do with my New Year's Eve?) --Transfinite 04:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant to mention this, I removed the link to the stormfront forums, since online forums are not reliable sources. Anyway, the fewer "Illegal in Germany" warnings, the better. --Transfinite 05:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Found this on the 4chan article: [1]. An actual reliable source. --Transfinite 04:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a blog from the POV of the Channel Network: http://turnerchan.blogspot.com/. It provides a pretty good account of the events leading up to the conflict. --Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.235.125 (talk • contribs) 07:24, January 11, 2007 (UTC)

"Dear Hal Turner"

I removed a section from the section "Feud with prank callers" that starts out with "Dear Hal Turner". That section has serious NPOV problems, and also there are copyright violation concerns, since it is a copy of something posted on 7chan.org's /i/ board [2]. I don't like Hal Turner myself, but there is no need to call him "an uppity little bitch". --Transfinite 23:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Quoting a source that says Turner is "an uppity little bitch" doesn't mean that the Wikipedia community is calling him "an uppity little bitch". It has nothing to do with who doesn't like Hal Turner or not or whether he's "an uppity little bitch" or not... it's just a quote. Cowicide 05:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Article listed for deletion

Please make appropriate comments here. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Why delete this article? It has been decided that it is A. Notable and B. actively involved with a current event with large legal/political ramifications. More interesting than the feud itself is the application of DDoS law to a large group of people. --Eyaw Nayr 19:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What is this passive aggressive approach most of Wikipedia has towards internet culture? What, did ED make you feel butt hurt so you feel the most of the internet communities out there are garbage? And what would be interesting to me is how you could apply DDoS law to downloading images repeatedly on your own computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.207.105.30 (talk • contribs) 17:47, January 13, 2007 (UTC)

There AfD has been delisted. The result (obviously) was keep. When the AfD was originally listed, there was a question of his notability. However, this issue has been decided. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hal Turner calls for political assassinations?

This article is a must read. Assuming that, uhh, WingNutDaily is a reliable source, some of this should probably go into the article. --Cyde Weys 17:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Hal claims that he opines about the assassinations of elected officials. The border between opining and actually advocating is somewhat fickle. This is just my opinion, so take it as you will. Ulairix 20:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Turner seems to be openly calling for the assassination of members of Congress if a bill he believes to be wrong is passed. His reported words do not allow much interpretation. As these seem to violate several US federal laws (IANAL but Sections 351, 2384 and 2385 all seem to apply), these statements calling members of Congress who vote for laws granting 'amnesty' for illegal aliens "A DOMESTIC ENEMY" and saying they "WILL BE CONSIDERED A LEGITIMATE TARGET FOR ASSASSINATION" or "Sorry to have to be so blunt, but the country is in mortal danger from our present government and our liberty is already near dead because of this government. If you are too stupid to turn things around with your vote, there are people out here like me who are willing to turn things around with guns, force and violence. We hope our method does not become necessary" seem to be important. --24.62.55.11 07:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm sure the constitution gives us the right to destroy the government by force if the government were to take our rights away. Either that, or I'm mistaking it for a founding father's quote. Anyone who could remember it or restate it would make me happy to do so. --Can Not 05:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The United States constitution does not give its citizens the right to destroy the government by force. Our rights are supposed to be protected by the Supreme Court who will overturn any law which violates the constitution. If you attempt to organize a group to destroy or overthrow the government you'll be arrested for treason and executed. Did you fail civics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.121.140.144 (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hal Turner WBCQ Controversy

Perhaps a section should be added regarding the end of his WBCQ show. Up until 2004, Hal Turner had a weekly show on shortwave station WBCQ. In 2004, Turner claimed that as a result of his screening of "The Passion Of The Christ", he decided he could no longer do business with Jews (Alan Weiner, who owns WBCQ, is apparently Jewish) and therefore was discontinuing his WBCQ show (he also cited declining interest in shortwave radio). If my memory serves me correctly, WBCQ claimed they were pulling Turner's show because he owed the station money. I'm not sure who was telling the truth here, but in fairness to WBCQ, it should be noted that Turner was apparently going through a period of financial difficulty (within a few months after ending his WBCQ show, he also discontinued his Internet radio show, citing lack of funds, and even shuttered his website for a time). In addition, I doubt Turner ever explained why a movie would transform his opinion on whether it's OK to do business with Jews (certainly it's not a case of "The Passion" turning a latent anti-semite into an active one; as far as I know, Turner was always virulently anti-semitic), so it seems his justification for pulling the show was a face-saving one. For that matter, why wouldn't he just switch to WWCR if he couldn't do business with Jews anymore? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MisterBungle (talk • contribs) 21:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Skin Color Issue

I think its absolutely foolish to become superior on the basis of so called skin color. Black, White, Yellow, Brown are all men created terms. God created everyone from Adam and Eve and a person claiming to be superior because he/she thinks that he/she is white is absolutely crazy. Intelligence or strength does not come from skin color. I think people like Hal Turner have this misconception that should not be encouraged by other people. There are dumb people and smarter people and skin color does not reflect that at all. I saw the CNN program "The Noose" about Black people being mistreated by people like Hal Turner was absolutely sad to know because when God created this earth and he put the human on the earth. Angels asked him that why are you creating this human who is going spread hatredism, blood shed and violence so I guess angels were correct about us being hatred and violent for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammadkidwai (talk • contribs) 07:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

False Lawsuits

Recently he presented a "Legal" document which statements within reveal it is obviously a fraud and also within there are a number of times that the word 'Plaintiff' is replaced with the word 'me' which no official legal document would have.

The PACER website has found NO case with the number mentioned within the document. Also why would a Lawyer refer to his Radio show as a "National Treasure" and "the most listed to radio show in the world" Such statements are not legal terms and the radio show comment could be easily disproved by radio ratings.

Therefore this document is a fraud. 68.9.223.94 14:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Edit: Appendium Also This is a wonderful excerpt

"16. Later, on or about December 23, 2007, one or more of the John Does posted to the internet Plaintiff's personal, private, unlisted home telephone number and the private unlisted home telephone number of Plaintiff's 62 year old mother, Kathleen Diamond in Tunkhannock, PA." No Lawyer in his good mind would make such a GLARING and Obvious error 68.9.223.94 16:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

First off, IANAL. The lawsuit is on PACER now. Case/Docket Number is 2:07-cv-00306 . As for a lawyer, Turner is pro se, which is legal jargon for "representing yourself". The judge denied his temporary injunction and restraining order against "4Chan.org, 7chan.org, Ebaumsworld.com, NexisOnline.net, Abjects.com, and John Doe(s) 1-1000." --Transfinite 01:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hal does not liek mudkips?

Can we have some sources for that? That's just... wow. I spilled my drink laughing-from K37
Apparently, he likes Squirtles. I heard so on his radio show. 赤鈴姫 20:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

According to this song: http://media.putfile.com/Hal-Turner-Song he likes Squirtle. 赤鈴姫 10:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Hm, looks like Pool's Closed.

This whole mudkips thing just goes to show how juvenile the attacks on Hal have been. It's sad really, you are free to disagree with him and all you can come up with is something silly like that? WickedEncyclopedia 06:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hal did indeed say on his show that he prefers squirtles.--160.5.225.172 18:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Homosexual leanings

I moved this out of the lead because it was out of place there. -SpuriousQ (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

7chan Conspiracy

I'm trying to get ahold of some data on a supposed collaboration with the mods/admins of 7chan a few months back. According to what I remember, 7chan organized a fake invasion of Turner's site (for publicity) in exchange for the money to put up a new server. I don't know much, but I think this may be newsworthy if the whole story can put together. Sweetfreek 05:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That was actually a joke. They never got paid by Hal to do that. If anything it is more interesting to talk about how Hal has managed to get all his domain names stolen. Haplo7 11:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a troll because they knew some neo-Nazi was reading the /i/ board for news to post on his blog, so they posted a thread "revealing" the conspiracy which was subsequently reposted by the neo-Nazi, and everyone had a good chuckle. Ashibaka (tock) 23:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

ebaums

I just think that there should be a sentence or two describing this website. Image sharing internet communitys, something like that. Right now it says somthing about them being pedofilic or something, which is wrong in the sense that calling the US house and senate pedofilic would be; a few rouge senators (or in this case, website patrons) shouldnt define an entire organization so I think that should be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danis1911 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

I disagree. None of those sites have anything to do with Hal. It's all eBaums World, they are trying to blame 4chan to get it shut down.

4chan will win

It's Ebaumsworld. Ebaumsworld has the most original content. I can tell you this is ebaums, every few days there's a large "Attack Hal Turner" thread in ebaums and I wouldn't be surprised in any way if the big attacks were from ebaums. Thunk 05:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

RULES 1 AND 2. 58.178.90.252 12:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

RULES 1 AND 2. plus, it was ebaums, if you read wikichan.org, the hal turner attack was a ebaums thing. Tirus 13:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

RULES 1 AND 2. what are they?--Can Not 04:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

lurk moar

Deleted nonsense WickedEncyclopedia 06:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

NO. SILENCE. It is always Ebaumsworld.

Deleted memes WickedEncyclopedia 06:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of "Causes" Subsection

{{editprotected}}

This section has been tagged for improperly citing its sources, but it arguably remains the most important section on the page. Someone should request unprotection or allow me to edit this section, as I am probably one of the most qualified people on this subject. If this request is denied then I'm going to have to request unprotection, which might re-open the floodgates for more vandalism from eBaums. The subsection in question also contains unverified content and serious NPOV issues which I could solve with a few citations. --Cmdrchinchilla 07:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Requesting unprotection seems like the best idea. By the way, the editprotected tag should go immediately beside the request. CMummert · talk 00:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm pretty new here. Thanks for correcting my tag placement. I will request unprotection in the near future. --Cmdrchinchilla 07:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I unilaterally deleted 'causes.' I argue that it's not notable to keep in, particularly since it is primarily unsubstantiated claims.

I'm fairly familiar with the situation and I wouldn't say the claims are inaccurate but I would say that they're not very important expect maybe to those who are directly involved (ie: anonymous or whatever they're called.) Certainly not newsworthy in any way... we could fill volumes trying to analyze Turner's rationalizations of his behavior weighed against the rest of the world. Xwoodandwater 16:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous raids Hal Turner's house.

Currently happening right now. If it's real, we'll find out for sure later today. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Can Not (talk • contribs) 19:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Well it's over now, and it looked like only a few showed up, but there's zero verifiable sources on this. Hal himself removed all reference to it on his site. You can read about it on 420chan but there's not going to be any mention of this in the press probably. --213.202.140.92 09:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the significance of this guy? I just don't get it by reading the wiki article... --71.107.217.121 00:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

the signifigance of hal turner is that he is all about hatin on black and mexicans and its funny as hell to call him up on his show and talk about 4chan memes to him. either you know or you dont... Tirus 13:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Article about Hal Turner specifically intended to villianize.

It is painfully obvious that only those who have strong feelings against Hal Turner are allowed to edit the article. This is a particularly dangerous form of censorship. If Wikipedia would like any credibility as an Encyclopedia, it must rely on facts, not twisted distortions of questionable facts. WickedEncyclopedia 02:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's quite possible for any article to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. If you feel that's the case with this article, edit it. It's a wiki. Find reliable sources for any information you wish to add, and remove information that doesn't have reliable sources to back it up. Leebo ^T/C

I did edit the article, it was deleted. There is very little NPOV in this article. WickedEncyclopedia 10:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Try talking to the user who reverted your change. Coming here to label the encyclopedia as a blanket source of censorship won't resolve the dispute. Leebo ^T/C 13:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that whenever there are strong feelings involved, any attempt on my part to add a NPOV to the article is deleted. The channers have the free time to edit Wikipedia as often as they want, so it has become their mouthpiece and lost its credibility as a valid news source. WickedEncyclopedia 06:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere on his website where he specifically endorses Ron Paul. Is this just an attempt to associate Dr. Paul with neonazis and racists? Ulairix 00:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This article should be edit to a NPOV and locked.

this is inevitably the article he will get in most any encyclopedia, take a look at his website and news updates, what he advertises for and his personal and public history. This article is going to have a negative tone to it from any angle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.249.77 (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed excessive detail on website hosting, protest

I removed the excessive detail about Turner's difficulties finding a website host, which were inappropriate for this context. They were easily summarized with a single sentence linked to the sources for the detailed info. Those who are interested enough to do so can find this detail in the source material.

I also removed the bit about the "raid" on his home, because there is no indication that ever occurred. If this did occur, and there is some source for the information other than Turner, then it should be cited. One would think that an event of this magnitude would make the local news.

Adam Holland 21:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you removed the entire website/radio section from the page. If you want to trim down the article, I can understand, but you went beyond that. I highly recommend that this page be reverted quite a bit, as this was no small issue for Hal. If you honestly believe that this whole section was inappropriate to the topic of the article, then you might as well remove the section on his threats towards judges too. Threats were made and trouble was caused, one can hardly say it's not suited to the article.Sandwiches99 03:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

While this may be "no small issue for Hal", that doesn't mean it should be in the article. One of the main reasons Hal Turner is of interest to the general public that he's made news by issuing threats to politicians, some of whom have been the victims of violence. The details of the denial of service attacks, while interesting to those who are already interested in Hal Turner, are not of interest to the general public, so I summarized that information in a single sentence, while leaving links to sources for more information.

One way to judge how interesting this is to the general public is to look at the sources for this information. I rely on mainstream news and other information sources. That seems a good rule of thumb.

Adam Holland 06:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Website Issues/Radio Raids

I find it interesting that the entire section about the raids (which lasted quite a while) have been completely removed from this page. Also interesting is the fact that the user Adam Holland seems to have made a very large number of small edits (which don't seem to have much use for the most part) instead of simply one large edit. It is ridiculous that this chapter in Hal's life would be removed entirely from the page, as it caused him a great deal of trouble for quite a while. Perhaps it can be trimmed down from it's previous length, but to remove it entirely is to ignore the fact that it ever happened, which is just silly. He made threats towards some of the raiders as well, by the way, one time being when he claimed he would get his "nazi skinheads" to come beat/kill some of the prank callers. Sandwiches99 03:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no objective evidence for the "raids". What are the sources for this material?

By the way, I made a number of minor edits, mostly for style and grammar, which are, in fact, useful.

Adam Holland 06:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The raids are probably documented somewhere, but most of the time they're just talked about on 4chan or 7chan. Hal had twisted information about it on his website, but he may have removed it now, especially since he made up things about that raid that wasn't true, such as the so-called "revenge" he got on one of the "raiders" by showing a picture which he obviously google searched. There is some information that can be found on Encyclopedia Dramatica (Apparently I'm unable to link this on wiki because it's "black listed"). A lot of the things posted there are biased and some of the content may be there as a parody or a joke, but in the particular article about Hal Turner, there's a lot of factual events noted.--Relyt22 23:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

All information about the raids may be found on Ebaumsworld. 130.251.167.29 09:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Where is the evidence? All content on Wikipedia is supposed to be backed up by reliable references. Spylab (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there are still no references proving that any of that stuff actually took place, I again deleted the section about the alleged Internet attacks. Spylab (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality?

I can't help but wonder why the hell this page should be kept neutral. As far as I'm concerned it should point Hal Turner out to be the thick-headed bigot he is. I know Wikipedia is meant to be kept factual and avoid slander, but what's wrong with speaking the truth? I suppose the next thing I read here will be 'Adolf Hitler was a man who disagreed with the Jewish religion but I'm sure he had his reasons for what he did...'

You can remain neutral while and tell the truth at the same time. You can't write "Hitler was an evil bastard" but you can write "Scholars generally recognise Hitler as being the most evil bastard to have lived" and provide a good reference. If you write an article on a terrible person truthfully, you don't need to break neutrality and call them the asshole, because the article's details of their beliefs will make people relise just as easily that someone is an evil bastard. Cheers, Rothery 06:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The article must remain neutral(or as much as it possibly can be knowing who the ones editing it are).It's a little thing called free speech. Just because you don't agree with the man, doesn't remove his First Amendment right to say what he does. What worries me are the people like you who have such a burning desire to make the 'politically correct' version of the news the ONLY source. It is the modern day version of book burning. The internet is our last bastion of free speech, and we need to protect it, even if it hurts some people's feelings. If you don't like him, don't listen to him, watch the cable news show instead, they are more likely to tell you what you want to hear. Who constitutes a scholar? Sure they are well read and can quote famous passages verbatim, but most have their own agenda and will try to bring you around to their way of thinking. It is up to YOU to separate the wheat from the chaff. Don't provide the Government's of the world more ammunition to restrict the internet any more than they do now, if they do, and I'm afraid it's heading that way, we will only receive Government propaganda under the guise of the media. WickedEncyclopedia 06:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that neutrality must be maintained, otherwise you are doing the same thing that Hal Turner can be held accountable for, and although you may have a better reason than he does, it does not make it better. However, adressing WickedEncyclopedia, while he (Hal Turner) does have a right to express his opinion under the First Amendment, and racism in itself may not be a crime, the advocation of violence towards specific groups of people or even just specific individuals is a clear sign that someone is not an admireable person, and I do not think that this article, as it stands, is biased. Hal Turner is a liar, likes to attract attention or pity to himself, often through his aforementioned penchant for telling lies, condones violence not only towards ethnic minorities, but also towards people who simply disagree with him, even if they do so in as civil a manner as possible, and spreads racist propaganda instead of simply stating his opinion. In light of these facts, which have been proven to be true by anyone following the issue from all sides involved, the article in regards to his person is very neutral and fair towards Mr. Turner. Some would say more so than he deserves, but I think everyone deserves fair treatment, and he does get it, despite your claims that this article is overly biased. It is true that sometimes, biased statements might make their way into this article, but often, they are removed within as short a time as can be reasonably expected for a website of this magnitude. It does portray Hal Turner as a human being, which he is, with as little bias as possible in regards to a person of such volatile notority. Alexander Raziel 19:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"Hal Turner is a is a liar": Actually, this doesn't necessarily prove that he's a liar. He's lying, or he's being lied to/pranked, or there's actually a conspiracy to make the exact coins he has and for some reason the government is allowing one of the designers of previous American coins to produce and sell them as "fantasy coins" on his personal website.

This is an article (apparently the second) which he wrote about a supposed conspiracy to unite Mexico, the United States, and Canada as one country, based on pictures of a coin which had the words "Union of North America" on them. However, the exact same pictures appear on this website, as a preview of coins they plan to sell. On the other hand, some of the commentators for the post respond as if the site was already brought up [3], and since the comments are moderated on the site, he (or maybe one of his moderators, but I don't know for a fact that he has any) must have seen the link already. So far, there's no retraction, so I don't know.

As I said, it's possible that he's being lied to, either as a prank or a publicity stunt. In fact, I believe it to be the case: "The delivery date of pre-sale items is expected to be completed by early October, 2007." (from the DC Coins website). It shows that he is gullible due to confirmation bias, though. After all, those coins don't really look like national mint quality to me, but that's my subjective opinion. --Raijinili 04:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, "The delivery date of pre-sale items is expected to be completed by early October, 2007." Very important word. --Raijinili 04:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe this article is neutral. It is not biased to say "this man hates gays, blacks, jews and wants to assassinate Democrats... and many consider this to be extreme, dangerous and even criminal."

Is that such a crazy idea, really? I mean really. Come on. He's a wacko. Let's "neutrally" indicate this fact here. -Laikalynx (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Exposed one of the numerous lies

I see the claim that Verizon and AT&T customers were unable to listen to Hal's show have been dropped after I revealed that I had AT&T DSL and have no problems listening. What other lies are being told in the name of political correctness? WickedEncyclopedia 14:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are fucking stupid. 130.251.167.29 09:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that is a really classy insult! Nothing witty to say so you resort to petty insults? WickedEncyclopedia 06:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The Anti-Hal Turner rhetoric has surpassed madness. You may not agree with his viewpoints, but he has the right to host his own website in which he espouses his own viewpoints. The amount of immature lies on this wiki is shameful. All posted by politically correct children, no doubt. It is a black mark against wikipedia that it is allowed to go on. No proof is offered in the slandering of his name. If you have a problem with Hal Turner, start you own anti-Hal website, wikipedia is no place for bald-faced lies. WickedEncyclopedia 23:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There is ZERO NPOV regarding this wiki

This wiki is a disgrace. NPOV flew right out the window and was replaced with Hal Turner bashing. All the little kids with nothing better to do than make up memes have ruined any hope of NPOV. I have exposed numerous lies which have been deleted. Just because Hal Turner has a different viewpoint than you does not give you the right to make up slanderous lies about the man. Your viewpoint is not always correct, believe it or not, when you grow up, you may realize the error of your ways. WickedEncyclopedia 06:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: people hate Hal Turner. They come to this page to bash him because they can edit it and do as such. Instead of complaining about inherent errors you find, edit the article and fix them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be an exercise in futility as my corrections would simply be changed back to their original lies. WickedEncyclopedia 06:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no changes that you've actually made to the article other than attacking the sources or the article itself. Unless you cite specific points in this article that you believe have a skewed point of view, then stop complaining about it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no changes, wake up in the morning and I ask myself; is life worth living should i bless myself? Tūpac (Tupac) 06:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

None of your edits to Hal Turner have been productive, WickedEncyclopedia. You're just complaining about the state of the article, and of Wikipedia, in general. If you want the article to maintain a neutral point of view, then fix it up yourself. Be bold. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would ask people to take the opinions of The Anti-Defamation League, One People's Project and The Southern Poverty Law Center with a very large grain of salt as they have a serious axe to grind with Hal Turner. WickedEncyclopedia 07:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, for the last time, I try to fix the article only to have my corrections deleted. I believe I have mentioned that numerous times. WickedEncyclopedia 07:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Also I believe Wikipedia is responsible for making sure there is a NPOV? WickedEncyclopedia 07:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The responsibility lies within Wikipedia's editors. You are a Wikipedia editor (you're here, aren't you?), so you can take the initiative and fix up the article to maintain a neutral point of view. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You are like a broken record. I can fix it, only to have my changes deleted. WickedEncyclopedia 08:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Your previous edits did not help the article. You added commentary. If you write in an encyclopedic format (in accordance to WP:MOS), then your edits will be taken more seriously. Nishkid64 (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's the main article you are speaking of my posts were a warning to not take your one-sided sources too seriously. I felt that was important in maintaining a NPOV. WickedEncyclopedia 08:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There really is no more to discuss, neither one of us is going to back down. I will not back down against censorship and you will not back down in your censoring. WickedEncyclopedia 08:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you disputing? Hal Turner obviously makes hateful remarks that are clearly meant to offend people by race. This can be seen by looking at his site. He's a racist and proud of it. --68.161.155.7 05:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And what's the matter with this ? .—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.233.213.252 (talk)

if you don't think there's anything the matter with being an asshole, that's just fine. our opinions about whether or not he's an asshole should not be part of the article. people should be able to read the article and determine if (that) he's an asshole from the information therein. -Laikalynx (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Article stubbified

This is notification that I have stubbified this article for constant violations of our policy on biographies of living individuals, in particular, opinionated against subject, even in the lede, and many "citation needed" tags, very controversial figure.. I request that all editors do not revert, but work to include verifiable material. Will ^(talk) 21:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For some reason this page is on my watchlist. I don't remember why I edited this page in the first place, and have not been active on it in quite some time. However, I have never heard of deletion of an entire article because of BLP issues. The usual step is just to remove the offending information. If after doing that here, an article does not exist, then clearly, Turner is not a notable person. But to delete a well sourced article because the information is negative is a dangerous precedent. In sum, either place the article for WP:AfD, or restore it with the offending information deleted, in other words actually create a stub. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I would really have not blanked the article were I able to create a non-contentious stub. Will ^(talk) 01:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that was a stupid choice. I decided to be bold and restore it per WP:BLANK, and I have also sent it to get possible full protection so we can discuss what to do. ViperSnake151 18:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's currently blanked. Some sort of compromise should be found here, rather than reverting to the BLPvio version. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 00:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a BLPvio version, and blanking an entire article because of "Six citation needed tags" (according to Sceptre) is not based in policy. If those 6 citation tags are for contentious material, you remove the contentious material. - auburnpilot talk 00:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a version that remove all material the is blatantly unsourced or tagged as "citation needed". It is a split between a version I was working on, and the version attempted by Monobi (talk · contribs). Here is a comparison between the version in my sandbox, and the one in J Milburn's. - auburnpilot talk 01:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Illegal Immigration Dispute

I figured that since there is a dispute tag over Turner's alleged call for violence against illegal immigrants, that I'd create a section to discuss exactly what is disputed, and why it is being disputed. If there is no discussion, then I'm going to remove the tag. FTR-- I have no opinion of Turner, this article, or his views. I just want to make sure that the rules are being followed at this article. If you place a tag on an article you should open a section for discussion of the tag.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It fails WP:NPOV bigtime and is the reason why it was blanked several weeks ago. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a record of what statements Turner has used. Will ^(talk) 23:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the dispute whether Turner said it? Or is that what he said is out of context? If the words are accurate, then WP:NPOV would not apply as that policy applies to viewpoints not facts. Whether Turner said something is a fact, characterizing it is a viewpoint. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I doubt the reliability of the source. Besides, I googled "I advocate using extreme violence against illegal aliens." Nothing to corroborate this other than myspace astroturfing. Will ^(talk) 00:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hal vs Internet

Why is there no section about his struggle with 'raids' by numerous internet groups? ArcaneKnowledge (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Whenever that topic gets added, it's never backed up by reliable sources, and is written in an unencyclopedic manner. Spylab (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

SEAN HANNITY

My sourced edits, noting that Turner was a frequent contributer/caller to Sean Hannity's show as well as Bob Grant's show, have been removed without comment. Hannity was at least as important to Turner as Grant, as the cited article states. Please do not remove the edits without stating a cause, Jimintheatl (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Jimintheatl

My edit was undone without discussion. I pointed out to the editor that the reference cited (Nation article) discusses Turner's calls to Grant and Hannity, and the article's title refers to Hannity. How is that a sourcing problem?? Jimintheatl (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Jimintheatl

• I think the guy's got a point. Can someone please explain to this non-involved admin why the reference to the Sean Hannity show should be removed as a "BLP" violation? Tabercil (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I haven't been too involved on this article, but I think the problem is that Hannity and his radio station management have apparently denied the allegations/relationship. I did some rework on the Sean Hannity article to make the coverage on this more in line with WP:NPOV. Nesodak (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

While they've "denied the relationship," they have not (and factually cannot) deny that Hannity allowed Turner on his program as regular guest -- which is the real point...not that they were off-air buddies, but that Turner was given a fairly prominent on-air presence. Jimintheatl (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Jimintheatl

Apparently they've denied that as well - this is a source which mentions the denials. Nesodak (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet the Nation is a pretty reliable source by itself... so why not see if we can't split the difference? Why not say something like this: "caller to the WABC-AM radio talk shows hosted by Bob Grant and Sean Hannity[1] (though Hannity has denied that Turner was a regular caller and says he was banned from the show[2])" where [1] is a ref to the Nation article and [2] would be a link to the HuffingtonPost article? Tabercil (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was basically the approach I used in Sean Hannity. It seems to have stopped the edit war, at least for now. We'll see if it holds. Nesodak (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Allegations

I hope that everyone agrees that Turner is a bad guy. However, WP policy tells us not to repeat rumors and allegations about living people. It seems to me that there is little danger WP readers will become neo-Nazis if these are removed from the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I disagree. There is no problem in reporting that there are rumors surrounding something, providing we back it up with reliable sources and explicitly state that they are rumours only. J Milburn (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If the allegations are true and he is an informant or an agent provocateur for the FBI, wouldn't it be better to not mention it here and let it just happen? I also removed some external links to questionable sources. I think there is enough information from reliable sources to let people know what kind of person Turner is. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

We're not here to try and demonstrate what kind of person Turner is, we're here to present information, and that information is well sourced and relevent. J Milburn (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Could someone link the sources here on this talk page, so we can figure out whether or not they are reliable? Nesodak (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section. J Milburn (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Rounding up and killing Jews

I going to remove this until it can be better saourced. The ADL article has him saying that the wants to kill some k*ke and some other garbage, but this seems like it should be better sourced. I am no suporter of this person or his hate speech for what its worth. Thank you. --72.209.10.176 (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The actual quote is "Instead of fighting Muslims, we Christians should be rounding up jews [sic] and killing them here in America." That seems to be correctly summarized. The ADL is a sufficiently reliable source for a direct quote. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I missed it in my first read. --72.209.10.176 (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The site is still up

There's no link to it in the External Links section, and the last part of the article doesn't mention the site being back up. --149.4.211.159 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it is not up! Whatever site you were looking at was a "mirror" site (created by other white nationalists) that basically stored his info in case his website shut down. Rock8591 07:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the AMERO on this page?

This is a pretty major claim not to even have a mention on his wiki page. It may make people think it's being censored by the gov't (Systemsplanet (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1954933468700958565&hl

He says his blog is shutting down

He claims he is shutting his blog down to focus on more important things. It would be a hoot if his 'followers' actually did something now; it would definitely be interesting, but he said he was totally done with his internet presence months ago. I think he has gotten to be an attention whore to validate himself, and will return fairly soon. Just go ahead and practice what you preach, otherwise nobody can take you seriously. Propagandamachine (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

now he says he is comming back.Wednesday, March 25, 2009 at 9:00 PM eastern US time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.160.119 (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Arrest

Hal Turner has been arrested on incitement to injure government officials. 66.167.48.19 (talk) 03:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the arrest is mentioned, but I didn't notice it because it's at the bottom of the page. Being in police custody seems significant enough to place it closer to the top, or at least to mention it in the intro and the section about threats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.48.19 (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

supremacist is wrong

{{Hal Turner is NOT a white-supremacist. this must be removed from this article for truth and accuracy. i have listened to him for years, and he has never advocated any form of supremacism in any way. he simply feels that race is a distinct and important part of the make-up of a human being, his culture and cultural heritage; and different races, in general, belong in their own space, and under their own rule. if anything, he is an advocate of separatism, definitely not supremacism.}}

209.112.188.15 (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Be honest.

Oh please. They guy has called for violence and eradication of immigrants, blacks, and Jews. Are we going to split hairs over how a redneck hate community tries to define it's disgusting beliefs? There's no difference. He's a hateful piece of shit and I have to assume anyone who could listen to this moron "for years" is one too. You fail. Capeo (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Federal officials confirm Hal Turner was an FBI informant

This should probably be added to the article. After his arrest MSNBC reported:

"Federal officials have said in the past that Turner was briefly an informant for the FBI, something he strongly denied."[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by SBIDog69420 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

surely the issue of him being an informant deserves to be more clearly placed on his page? I mean it should really be first line rather than final paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.144.61 (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)