Talk:Stormfront (website)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Stormfront (website). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

This is the archive of Talk:Stormfront (website)

2005

Since no such page exists on Stormfront holding the beliefs cited, I am removing the text until someone wishes to link to them.

I notice that from time to time editors, usually anonymous, come through and delete mentions of Stormfront being a neo-nazi group. Other editors may not be interested in researching the truth of that assertion, so I'll list here some references that I've come across. In general, it should be noted that even if Don Black does not call Stormfront a neo-nazi site, an objective look at it shows that it is operated as one.

directory of "National Socialist Graphics including logos and eagles." [www.stormfront.org/graphics.html]
directories of articles about "Zionism and Judaism: Information on the Jews and their impact on our society." and "Revisionist materials of interest to those pursuing the truth about the alleged German war crimes during WWII." [www.stormfront.org/texts.html]
Usernames such as: "STURMFUHRER", "Landsturm", " Europa Fuer Immer", " AryanNationsOhio", "sunshinestate88", and other names that refer to neo-nazi concepts and heroes.
user avatars, such as one of a picture of Hitler saluting. [www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=69752&page=83&pp=10]

In short, there is plenty of evidence that Stormfront caters to neo-nazis. -Willmcw 23:18, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since when does the German language imply Nazism? Many non-Nazi left wing groups oppose Zionism. Revisionism is a pursuit independent of neo-Nazis. Few if any members of the StormFront community call themselves neo-Nazis. One user with a Hitler avatar is not just cause to label the community as a neo-Nazi group. You are referring just to the message board. If we are to use the examples above why not include the those who oppose White Nationalist beliefs,or the Asian Nationalist board members. The fact is the majority of the message board members call themselves White Nationalists.

They've got swastikas in the sysop-controlled directories. They've got people saying "I'm a nazi." Taken together, there is pleny of evidence that the site intentionally caters to neo-nazis. I don't know how you can assert that the majority of users call themselves White Nationalists in preference to neo-nazis. Can you give a citation for that? -Willmcw 16:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is correct to state that it "caters to". And it's not claimed anywhere on stormfront.org that it is some kind of antifascist or politically correct website. Generally Nazis, skinheads etc are accepted as fully privileged posters, if they can obey the guidelines. On the other hand, the forum not only allows anti-nazi comments and arguments, but such views are often expressed by many moderators, assuming the critique is done from White Nationalist perspective. Most common lines include warmongering, subordinate role of racialism to imperial ambitions, unsystematic and cynically pragmatic tailoring of the ideology on the fly and mass slaughter of White people. Many posters are also vehemently opposed to any trace of socialism, including in National Socialism. So it is incorrect to say SF is a Nazi site. Revisionism (aka denial), anti-zionism and, well, anti-semitism probably would be more legit accusations, though not without controversy as well --Poison sf 07:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I have seen very few if any call themselves Nazi on that site. Can you give a citation for people calling themselves Nazi? The following is a quote from the main page on the website; "..........Stormfront first went online as a dial-up bulletin board in 1990 and has been on the Web since March 1995, becoming the first White Nationalist website..........." This combined with posts with titles such as "Why I am White Nationalist" and member names such as "A WHITE NATIONALIST" is pretty good evidence that Stormfront is a White Nationalist community.

I've already pointed out that the Sysop has a directory full of swastikas. The fact that he also calls it a White nationalist site is fine too. We can also use both terms. You, or another anonymous editor, said that a majority of user are only white nationalists, not neo-nazis. I'm stillwaiting for a citation for that. In this [[www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=156380&highlight=99%25+nazi poll], 52% of Stormfront users responded to the question, "should we display the swastika?" by answering either "yes" or "depends". Just use the search function. There's a thread in which many members insist they are not "Nazis", they are "National Socialists" instead. Fine, though to the rest of the world "National Socialist" = "Nazi". Anyway, if swastikas, anti-Jewish rants, admiring profiles of Hitler, and so on are not sufficient to make it a neo-nazi site, then what is? What is your definition of a neo-nazi site? (PS, if you're going to make controversial edits you ought to get a username - it'll give you more credibility.) -Willmcw 06:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

52% of of "yes" and "maybe" on wether or not to display the swastika do not prove that it is a neo-Nazi website, and that was not 52% of members but 52% of the 159 memebers that voted on that [[www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=156380&highlight=99%25+nazi poll]. So a total of maybe 46 people on a forum that has 41,210 members voted that they should display the Nazi flag. I am still waiting for your citations the prove that enough members identify themselves as neo-Nazi to warrant using that term. I have seen only anecdotal evidence from you. You are also mistaking the White Nationalist movement with specific political beliefs. The White Nationalists on that forum have varying political beliefs that range from capitalism to marxism. National Socialism is just one of the many political beliefs on that forum. The only thing that the community as a whole has in common is there belief in White Nationalism.

Fine. So we don't have to call it a neo-nazi website. In general, I don't think that Wikipedia should apply labels to people that they wouldn't use for themselves. But it is also true that this particular White National website also has lots of National Socialist members and resources. While the term may be inaccurate and prejudicial, most people would apply the "neo-nazi" label to 21st Century National Socialists. But, this article does not have to, so long as it is accurate and verifiable. -Willmcw 00:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I will agree to the article's current form. It seems that you and I are the only editors with an interest in this article, so it would be pointless to wait and see what anyone eles thinks. I did make one small change. I changed the part that mentioned 'Holocaust denial articles' to 'Holocaust revisionism articles'. The only other thing I see that maybe wrong with this article is the links section. The links provided seem 'slanted'. I will find more links to add to the links section. -TheManWithNoName

That is gracious, TMWNM. If you'll consent to leave the National Socialist members sentence I will remove the supporting references. I don't think the article needs to contain actual thread titles, so long as we agree on the nature of the website. The denial/revision change is fine by me, but lets see if the info needs to be included at all. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Having viewed the site, I am not convinced by the anoonomous comments above. There may be different sorts of white nationalist members of the forum, but there is cleasly a national socialist sympathy in the editorial of the site. The use of the german language is not evidence of this but the speicific words used and Gothic text isn't something used by all white nationaist it is specific to National Socialist heritage. Even the word "Stormfront" is suggestive of this.

Addtionally the there is clearly holcaust revisionism which is not objective (i.e. which takes any exageration or perjorative zionist revision to mean that we can dismiss the common viw held on the time) A specific example is the use of evidence that camps were for convictted criminals and policitical deviants and the possible existence of some Jews in Berlin as late as 1945 (fair enough) while ignoring the fact that lots of non politically alligned Jews including children were rounded up, and the fact that many of the exemptions (such as ex Jewish who had servedin the military) were eventually scrapped. Many white nationals accept Jes as white, the rejection is more of a National Socialist one or one that has been adopted from them by white groups wanting some sort of affinity with Nazis.

Criticizing a sample as not being representative of a whole group because it isn't the whole group also flies in the face of statistical theory. I don't know how accurate the specific sample above is but you get my point.Dainamo 18:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stormfront is ran by people who definitely sympathize with neo-nazis and the nazis. There interpretation of history and constant association of non-whites to crime and immorality. They clearly want non-whites deported from their lands and treated like animals. Rarely, are non-whites ever acknowledged as positive. They depict whites as inherently superior to non-whites and Jews by pointing out, or making up stories of crime. The biggest difference between Stormfront and the Nazis is that Stormfront is much more inclusive in their definition of "Aryan". English, Irish, French, Russian, and German are all considered white by Stormfront's standards. Nazis believe Germans were superior to all. the Nazis and Stormfront's ideaologies are very similiar and many WNs are inspired by Hitler. DaBomb 17:12, 31 May, 2005

One comment...

The depiction of a swastika does not automatically connotate a racist/Neo-Nazi/white-supremacist agenda or worldview. The swastika is being gradually reclaimed by its proper owners, the Asatruar, and also being cleansed of its taint from being misappropriated by the Third Reich of Germany.

Other than that: glad to see this page here. Stormfront needs to be shut down, and advertising what they really are is good work.

You are right, it doesnt, but Stormfront features no semblance of anything having to do with the Asatruar or any other traditional religious movement (i.e. that isnt somehow connected to estoric Hitlerism or other forms of Nazi-mysticism) that may use the swastika. -CunningLinguist 02:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The depiction of a swastika does not automatically connotate a racist/Neo-Nazi/white-supremacist agenda or worldview. "

True, but Stormfront hardly strikes me as a Buddhist or Hindu website. In the context in which Stormfront utilises it (and considering the type of swastika in use), the connotation is clearly Nazi or neo-nazi.AndyL 00:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

White supremacist forum? Stormfront does not support that. Read the site rules and posts. unsigned comment by user:24.107.210.90

Sure, let's check out some posts, shall we?

[www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=248096 "SISTER IS MARRYING A NEGRO!!!!!"]
[www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=225536 "Group of jews taking over Wikipedia", complete with "suspects" list]
[www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=53998 "when a white marries a kike"]
[www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=39643 "A nigger wins the beauty prize Mr. Spain :Revolting globalization"]
[www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=247211 "Would You Dis-Own Your Daughter or Son If They Married or Mixed With A Non-European?"]
[www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=150728 "Black's in Ukraine?"]
[www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=27519 "nigger math test"]
[www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=240280 "The Protocols of Zion: Real or Fraudulent?" (even those who admit they're a forgery nonetheless believe in "the Jewish threat")]
[www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=247871 "Do you Consider Yourself Equal to Pygmies?"]
[www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=26149 "Anglo Irish, Quadroon Papa"]

I gave Stormfront the benefit of the doubt. While I don't sympathize with racial separatism in the least (I'm of mixed ancestry myself, and engaged to a girl with Norwegian and Native American heritage), I also don't think "white pride" is in an of itself a racist concept (surely if one can be proud of being black, then one can be proud of being white). But scan the board for any lenght of time, and you'll notice a trend: It's less about "loving the white race" and a whole lot more about "hating everyone else".

"We don't hate anybody, we just love our own kind" my ass.--RicardoC 18:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

They really do change their presentation of their beliefs whenever they are suited to the argument. When you're talking about them saying that blacks are inferior it's "oh, we just want to be separated, we don't hate blacks or think they're inferior" but when you ask them why that is, they state that blacks are, as a race, criminals and idiots. The whole site is a practice in hypocrisy. VetteDude 03:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It's somewhat in the eye of the beholder. One comes to the site with expectations and an agenda to "unearth racial hate" or whatever, one gets just that. If I had an agenda I could "discover" hate of Whites againt Whites on the site, there're occasionally some fierce conflicts and fights... so what. Some threads on the list are quite notorious on stormfront itself and considered low brow and embarassing by many posters, myself included. Say, wikipedia thread was especially gross. Of course, it is ridiculous bullcrap to claim that "we don't hate anybody". All humans are quite hateful beings and I doubt there're many who can honestly say this. We consider "hate" a slanderous and absurd simplification in many contexts, that's all. The point is, a great number of stormfront posters does bring up black IQ gap, criminal levels etc. I guess it is undeniable that a very significant part, possibly a majority, kinda looks down on specifically the black race. But also it's not uncommon to see references to studies that claim very high average intelligence of Jews and Asians. So, is stormfront asian or jewish supremacist site now? Also not uncommon is rhetoric along these lines: "objective superiority is non-existant in nature, but whites are better suited for modern Western type societies than blacks". The issue that would really decide acceptance of a poster as a WN on stormfront is opposition to racial mixing and multiracial society. Theoretically one may preach even "inferiority" of Whites to some other races on stormfront, I believe. One could possibly encounter opposition, because it's not what many people want/like to hear. But ultimately it is the opposition to mixing and multiracialism that is the defining common ground at SF (Not to say that SF does not include some stereotypical supremacist posters). --Poison sf 07:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Two quick comments on that monstrosity of a paragraph (I guess racial superiority doesn't include the gift of proper composition):

All humans are quite hateful beings and I doubt there're many who can honestly say this.

Sounds like a justification, not a rebuttal.

But also it's not uncommon to see references to studies that claim very high average intelligence of Jews and Asians. So, is stormfront asian or jewish supremacist site now?

Well, let's once again look at the forum, shall we?

On Jewish intelligence:

[www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=2253238&postcount=3 "Look at the Askhenazi Jews, who are probably the "smartest" people in the world, and constantly score higher than even Asians in these tests. But it appears to be a different kind of intelligence. Analytical rather than creative. Half the chess world champions are Jews, and many, many Nobel prize winners in physics and such. But the great artists, inventors, explorers and conquerors are all white. The Jews' big brains are seemingly best constructed for plotting and scheming."]

Of course, you may argue that these are individual views and not representative of the organization, which is what the article is about. But these individual views are allowed by the moderators (at least one of whom often refers to those who engage him in debate as "juden" and "jew-boy". Stormfront.org is a white supremacist organization. Actual member/mod behavior trumps a weasely disclaimer.--RicardoC 20:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh oh. I'm not a good writer, that's for sure, and often too long-winded. But I've no choice but to address some outrageous mistakes you got there. I'll try to do my best :-/.

Not only it contains some miserably faulty logic, it calls stormfront what it is NOT - an organization. It's in no way an "organization", it's a discussion forum. It does serve as a platform for discussions & coordination of both intra and inter-organizational activities. For some countries, there're key activists/leaders posting regularly. For others, any potential SF-related activism is in the infancy/non-existant stage (or maybe just a few low rank members from standalone orgs posting).

Now, the logic in "-ist views are allowed by moderators, therefore it is -ist forum" is a pure fallacy. Excuse me, allowing -ist views means just that - forum is catering to or "tolerant" (nice word, eh?) of -ist views. Say, some leftist forum may allow openly gay people post their views. Even I, despite disliking gays, would not call the forum as a whole a "gay forum" because of it. It is invalid description, labelling. Same with say an "anti-racist" forum, where Marxists can be (and often are) significant faction.

"Juden" and "jew-boy" name-calling, inspected objectively, indicates contempt, bad blood, perhaps, but not "supremacism" (even the N-word is not necessary indicative of supremacism, it's indicative of rudeness at most). The quote your provided (chess champions etc) may or may not be called supremacist. IMO it's ambiguous. I'm in doubt about validity of facts mentioned there, perhaps it can be disputed. Anyway, who said analytical intelligence is inferior to creativity. Controversial, but, most importantly, (yeah, you guessed it) an individual view.

Stormfront "ideology" is an umbrella type of ideology. There're in fact relatively few things agreed on unanimously. The common denominator platform is linked to in the external links section of the article, and is called "White nationalism" internally. Nothing more is "required" or enforced. Assuming one accepts that (including, among post important points, opposition to miscegenation and multiracialism), one can argue in favour of superiority, inferiority, "equality" (equal but separate), whatever, ideally within the bounds of proper behaviour.

Definitely, Stormfront is NOT a politically correct forum where anybody will put any effort into censoring some -isms possibly seen as enraging by PC bigots. The only -isms not allowed are -isms contradicting the basic platform, including forms of politically correct supremacism practiced by some corporations ("let's bring in those miserable bastards to work for slave wages to cut costs"). People considering themselves "superior", but endorsing non-white immigration for, say, material reasons can and will be banished to opponent section. This alone proves that "supremacism" per se is not the "primary" viewpoint, but allowed in the "acceptable range" as long as it intersects with/does not contradict "White nationalism".

So, of course, anybody can unearth some material qualifying for "supremacism" with ease. Just as well, some material can be unearthed, referring to general mass of White people as neurotic, insecure, delusionary, lacking in pride, brainwashed, stupidly bowing to any whim of "minorities", unable to recognize & push collective interests when everybody around (including negroes) does it etc etc. Such sentiments are expressed in too many threads to mention, one named "[south] Korea seeks the Best, Canada gets the rest" by Paul Fromm comes to mind. Among all else, it contained some positive references to the wit of this technically advanced and educated nation, compliments to their immigration policy (including deporations of White illegal aliens) and bitter condemnation of vastly inferiour Canadian policies. It was just an especially striking, well written and memorable example, that gathered nothing but approval, and the sentiment is commonplace.

And inferiority, as one may call it, of Whites today in such departments as "group cohesion" and dominant political orientation is something unlikely to be disputed on SF... one of the few really commonplace opinions in fact. With standarts as lax as as yours, I wonder if you would call Stormfront a "White inferiorist" forum because of it. It's about as legit as "supremacist" label. In reality it is racialist, politically incorrect, White nationalist (dedicated to studying and developing the ideology of "White nationalism") discussion board --Poison sf 13:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh oh. I'm not a good writer, that's for sure, and often too long-winded. But I've no choice but to address some outrageous mistakes you got there. I'll try to do my best :-/.

Not only it contains some miserably faulty logic, it calls stormfront what it is NOT - an organization. It's in no way an "organization", it's a discussion forum. It does serve as a platform for discussions & coordination of both intra and inter-organizational activities. For some countries, there're key activists/leaders posting regularly. For others, any potential SF-related activism is in the infancy/non-existant stage (or maybe just a few low rank members from standalone orgs posting).

If "organization" bothers you so much, feel free to replace it with "entity".
Now, the logic in "-ist views are allowed by moderators, therefore it is -ist forum" is a pure fallacy.
Wrong. When the forum rules prohibiting the use of racial slurs are broken not only by regular members, but by members of the moderating staff, it reflects on the organization. Sorry, the entity ;-)
Excuse me, allowing -ist views means just that - forum is catering to or "tolerant" (nice word, eh?) of -ist views. Say, some leftist forum may allow openly gay people post their views. Even I, despite disliking gays, would not call the forum as a whole a "gay forum" because of it. It is invalid description, labelling.
Wrong again. Stormfront violates its own rules by allowing the posting of racial slurs, yet has no problem enforcing the rules restricting the posting of dissenting views. It's not merely catering, it's endorsing. If the rules were applied evenly, I might be more inclined to believe "the entity" really does try to separate itself from the more radical elements in its community. But it doesn't, so I don't.
Same with say an "anti-racist" forum, where Marxists can be (and often are) significant faction.
Consarnit, those darn commies invented anti-racism! I should have known! Well, that's it! I'm racist now, that'll teach them! ;-)
"Juden" and "jew-boy" name-calling, inspected objectively, indicates contempt, bad blood, perhaps, but not "supremacism" (even the N-word is not necessary indicative of supremacism, it's indicative of rudeness at most). The quote your provided (chess champions etc) may or may not be called supremacist. IMO it's ambiguous. I'm in doubt about validity of facts mentioned there, perhaps it can be disputed. Anyway, who said analytical intelligence is inferior to creativity. :::::Controversial, but, most importantly, (yeah, you guessed it) an individual view.
Translation: "Well gee, man... It's HATEFUL, not SUPREMACIST!"
Should I take your words to mean that you'd be more comfortable if I ceased referring to Stormfront as a "white supremacist group" and switched to simply "hate :::::group"?
Stormfront "ideology" is an umbrella type of ideology. There're in fact relatively few things agreed on unanimously. The common denominator platform is linked to in the external links section of the article, and is called "White nationalism" internally. Nothing more is "required" or enforced. Assuming one accepts that (including, among post important points, opposition to miscegenation and multiracialism), one can argue in favour of superiority, inferiority, "equality" (equal but separate), whatever, ideally within the bounds of proper behaviour.
That sounds lovely. However, as I've repeatedly demonstrated, Stormfront doesn't obey its own rules.
Definitely, Stormfront is NOT a politically correct forum where anybody will put any effort into censoring some -isms possibly seen as enraging by PC bigots. The only -isms not allowed are -isms contradicting the basic platform, including forms of politically correct supremacism practiced by some corporations ("let's bring in those :miserable bastards to work for slave wages to cut costs"). People considering themselves "superior", but endorsing non-white immigration for, say, material reasons can and will be banished to opponent section. This alone proves that "supremacism" per se is not the "primary" viewpoint, but allowed in the "acceptable range" as long as it intersects with/does not contradict "White nationalism".
Wrong, yet again. The very first "guideline for posting", posted by Don Black himself:
[www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=25433&postcount=1 "No profanity. Avoid racial epithets."]
So, of course, anybody can unearth some material qualifying for "supremacism" with ease. Just as well, some material can be unearthed, referring to general mass of White people as neurotic, insecure, delusionary, lacking in pride, brainwashed, stupidly bowing to any whim of "minorities", unable to recognize & push collective interests when everybody around (including negroes) does it etc etc. Such sentiments are expressed in too many threads to mention, one named "[south] Korea seeks the Best, Canada gets the rest" by Paul Fromm comes to mind. Among all else, it contained some positive references to the wit of this technically advanced and educated nation, compliments to their immigration policy (including deporations of White illegal aliens) and bitter condemnation of vastly inferiour Canadian policies. It was just an especially striking, well written and memorable example, that gathered nothing but approval, and the sentiment is commonplace.
You keep losing sight of the issue: That piece by Fromm, and the reactions it garnered, are not in contradiction of the rules set forth by "the entity" itself. The only type of rule-breaking that gets a pass involves the attacks on non-white races/ethnic groups. This is a position supported by the Stormfront administration, which makes its leanings quite plain to see.
And inferiority, as one may call it, of Whites today in such departments as "group cohesion" and dominant political orientation is something unlikely to be disputed on SF... one of the few really commonplace opinions in fact. With standarts as lax as as yours, I wonder if you would call Stormfront a "White inferiorist" forum because of it. It's about as legit as "supremacist" label. In reality it is racialist, politically incorrect, White nationalist (dedicated to studying and developing the ideology of "White nationalism") discussion board
...In which the only breakable rule concerns racial attacks on non-whites.--RicardoC 20:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
You drag too many questions in the discussion. As it was made clear on SF many times, SF has "guidelines", not "rules". The latter, as opposed to the former, would be too difficult to formulate. Guidelines set forth the "ideal" and it's left to moderators discretion to decide everything else. The highest priority deciding heuristic is "whether this helps the site and the movement". It's your right to dislike such policy, you may propose somehow clarifying it in the article in NPOV way. I don't consider it really THAT notable, nor SF really THAT important to warrant such details and technicalities on wikipedia, but I wouldn't much object either.
You create confusion by shifting the accent from whether SF is supremacist (an important question which influences what descriptions are appropriate in the article and which I'm thus interested to discuss) to breaking the rules and your personal woes with management of SF board, about which I don't care much.
Now, to clarify certain points. First on Marxism. I'm not really getting wisecracks in your response, my point basically was that White supremacism to Stormfront is what Marxism is to any anti-racist site. I.e. a noticeable subgroup even by unabashed self-identification, definitely some traceable ties as far as "philosophical" foundations go, but not enough for labeling in either case. Such labeling is propagandistic technique, not an encyclopedical approach.
On your remark about "hate site": It's good that you move to something technically less outlandish than "supremacist site"; I suggest "hate" subject is not touched in this branch any more so that discussion doesn't turn into absolute mess. Though I've things to say about "hate" too. BTW as you may have noticed, I added a paragraph that mentions "hate group" in the article earlier. So I'm in no way opposed to any usage of the "hate" tag. But I'm not really interested in how YOU want to call Stormfront personally. If you have some comments about "hate" or "hatefullness" that (you think) are important to the process of making the article better, I suggest you [+] a new discussion here maybe I'll throw in a comment or two. Let's concentrate on main direction of this discussion here, that is the supremacism tag.
A bit more on the breaking of the rules (more accurately the guidelines). The very reason why they had been introduced is that it was decided, allowing people to indulge in mindless name calling is not good for the board; on the other hand, it's good for the board to encourage something less low brow. Because of it, such guideline was introduced. Technically it's not enforced as a hard "rule". It was never considered an objective for the board to be a PC place catering to the touchy feely outsiders. As long as other objectives are satisfied (like not allowing the board to turn into namecalling fest), one can get away with it once in a while. After all, damn it, some consider even relatively neutral color-descriptions like "black" offensive and demand some idiotic newspeak like "afro-american". What's next? It's not an objective of SF to obey any whim of political correctness and newspeak.
And, while I'm at it, I don't even see "juden" and "jew-boy" as really that much of a slur. First is translation, second sounds more like a familiarity for me. I don't take "white-boy" as a big slur, though certainly it's not a sign of respect either. And you're technically wrong in saying that non-white related namecalling is the only one present. Whitey, honky, cracker, white-boy, this all can be spotted. Of course, mostly in context of citations or sarcasm or something, but it is present. How's that for breaking "rules"?
Thsi all has nothing to do with "supremacism". It can be seen as a breach of political correctness and YES, politically incorrect speech for Whites (exclusively) was made the "treshhold" of "hate" (for others the treshhold is much higher, even racially motivated violence sometimes doesn't pass it), at least within politically correct newspeak that is exactly what is called (White) "hate" very often.
Same with profanity BTW. It's not a coincedence both come related in guidelines. Racial epithets & profanity are considered degrading the quality of the board, but SF is not a church gathering, so the latter may occasionally fly too. Another similar case is "must be related to White Nationalism" guideline (not rule). Technically it's another one breached very often, so you're again incorrect in your claims.
Bottom line: even if you would be 100% correct, technically what you describe is called double standarts in applying the rules, to White and, especially, White nationalist posters and to non-whites/opponents. But this has nothing to do with White supremacism. It is a fact that double standarts exist, although I believe in some cases you exaggerate. But in general I don't deny it. "Stormfront moderators have different standarts for the insiders and opposing outsiders" - this is something as obvious and expected by default that it doesn't come as any kind of surprise. Or does it? Stormfront does not claim to be something like Wikipedia. It represents one POV and, just like in any other such place, opponents (non-whites are by default opponents, naturally, with very few exceptions), especially when coming in rude & opinionated, will get name-called. You can't complain. Just for an experiment, try to repost some WN article/opinion from Stormfront on the net and see what you get in response. In fact, relatively(!), in this department Stormfront is about as good as it gets in 90% of cases (well maybe losing to wikipedia). I've not yet seen ONE case when somebody came in as extremely polite & without taunts, gave his informed & factual opinion and then got called something nasty. But if one is rude, it doesn't help if he's not a "juden". A rude White opponent will be called some names too, possibly much worse than a "jew-boy". Proves nothing at all.
I think that most important points I've shown proving SF is NOT a "supremacist" website still stand. You did not and, I guess, can not refute it (naturally, because SF is not a supremacist forum). The arguments I've provided are much more important than speculations on how moderators (do not fully) enforce the "racial slurs" guideline. It's great of course that you're concerned with fairness of SF moderators, and perhaps I would even advocate taking a stronger position on this issue on SF... not before some name-calling is lifted from White nationalists though and opponents become more polite and fair too, in general. But you've too find something more substantial for supremacism allegations. For any other topics, as I already suggested, start new branch(es), or the text is going to get ugly here.
Oh, one more thing spotted. You're correct in saying that Stormfront is not trying (or not trying hard enough) to "separate from more radical elements". It's not a "reeducation camp" for say supremacists or nazis or something. "Less radical elements" (who include many moderators) are free to argue rationally with radicals that's all. I wouldn't even claim that White nationalism necessarily is or tries to be "less radical" than "white supremacism". It's simply a different thing, but, depending on the particular situation, it may even be the other way around. Say, as I already pointed out, it is possible to be a person believing in White superiority (over blacks or whoever), but feeling comfortable with the general direction the society is going. Say, a social darwinist version of supremacism ("we're superior, as such it's beneficial to have & increase the numbers of inferiors we can dominate in our country"). Such a person may or may not oppose, say, affirmative action exclusively, but not multiracialism/race mixing per se. Real life examples were spotted in opponent section. Although they may be called "supremacists", since SF is NOT a "supremacist" board, such people are treated as opponents. In this situation, a genuine White nationalist will in fact be by any standarts more radical than (this particular type of) supremacist. So it's not necessarily about radicalism.--Poison sf 21:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Any group that is as strongly pro-Nazi/Neo-Nazi as Stormfront has a presumption of being white supremacist. The content of the postings does nothing to dispel that. A claim that they are not is interesting, but not definitive. -Willmcw 22:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
"Pro-Nazi" thing is puzzling. Is there some objective criteria? Is dichotomy "either pro or strongly anti Nazi" assumed? What I consider fixed is that Stormfront is a website that refuses to censor Neo-Nazis or prohibit Neo-Nazi imagery in avatars etc. This is a fact. Also views on the personalities and activities of the 3rd Reich in the range from slightly less negative than mainstream to openly sympathetic are allowed (counter-arguments to this are also allowed and actually given, sometimes by moderators). Comments that the moderator staff & the admin occasionally add to modern neo-nazi related discussions are, from my experience, more often than not negative/critical to some degree, as of something immature, goofy or even provocational.
I'm getting a little frustrated with where the argument is going. I've already given my thoughts on why WN & WS groups/ideologies do intersect but are not identical (illustrating by some hypothetical & real-life cases) and why it is exactly WN that is most accurately for description of what SF is. [Note: it's in fact more to have an alternative viewpoint presented on this page than to somehow try and succeed at removing all mentions of supremacism from the actual article page; I do understand that media references alone make that impossible]. Now I don't want to waste time on something as vague as "pro-Nazi" (just Neo-Nazi is vague enough), dubious heuristic "pro-Nazi (vague as it is) implies White-supremacist" and proving SF is not pro-Nazi. I guess I could try to argue SF is not Neo-Nazi, but pro- is something far too vague. At the very least some clarificatin is required. Say, SF is a self-declared pro-White site, and especially sympathetic & (ideally) inclusive to any racialist Whites who subscribe to core objectives. Neo-nazies are a subset of (racially thinking) Whites, so in a way, yeah, SF IS pro-Nazi. Also, in certain situations, most SF members would choose Nazi leadership as a lesser evil, I guess, even those who normally would argue with neo-nazis on some important points. But generally consensus among privileged & prominent users is slighly or not so slightly critical of neo-nazism. I wonder what this nominal degree of "pro-Nazism" may indicate.
I believe if you inspect this objectively, you'll have to conclude supremacism/nazism to SF is what something between "communism" (at least) and general "leftism" (at most) is to anti-racist/"anti-fascist" forum, not more. Also, to SF "pro-Nazi" applies to the same or comparable degree as "pro-Christian", "pro-Pagan", "pro-Confederate", "pro-democratic" and some other such "pro-something".--Poison sf 04:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
We've already gone over the neo-nazi thing. See the discussion at the top of this page. -Willmcw 06:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I think I already commented there too, before. Basically same analogy with Marxism/Communism is appropriate with nazism also. Anti-racist forum with a noticeable subgroup espousing Marxist views and sporting Communist symbols in avatars etc doesn't mean it's accurate to describe the forum as "Marxist forum". It's properly called "anti-racist" forum. Do you agree or no? For the opposite to be true, IMO this hypothetical anti-racist forum would have to strongly endorse Marxism/Communism, for example by censoring open opposition & critique. Formally or informally declare Marxism essential and defining part of its ideology, something like this.
The problem with "pro-Nazism" you refer to is that nothing I'm aware of speaks in favour of "pro-Nazism", any more than secured by self-declared "pro-Whiteness" & general strategy of not demanding from participants more then a minimal common ground (summarized in manifesto). --Poison sf 23:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
My tuppence
I'm a SF member and I'd like to add a few things.
First, on the thread linked by Willmcw above
www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=156380
the poll asking whether "we" should use the swastika, no votes outnumbered yes votes by a couple of percentage points. Try and be more honest in the future Willmcw.
Second, (I'm responding again to Willmcw's comments above) Stormfront is not an organization, it is a message board.
Third, I suggest to anyone who is willing to buy into Willmcw's characterizations that he investigate for himself. Sure, SFers are far more sympathetic to Nazism than the general public, but it is far from a settled issue among SFers or WNs. I have flamed Nazis and their use of NSDAP symbology myself many, many times on SF. I basically take no prisoners on the matter. Just review the top posters via the members link (you can sort the list in various ways, I suggest post count or reputation) www.stormfront.org/forum/memberlist.php?&order=ASC&sort=joindate&pp=30 to see how many NDSAP avatars there are. They are present, but in no way dominant.
Frankly, I could care less about the epithet of "Nazi." The word holds no power over me (it's absurd as I prefer American Constitutional Republicanism over all other forms of government). On the other hand, I would like people to figure things out for themselves first hand, rather than rely on word of mouth.
Vanguard News Network
Based on the website that is run by Alex Linder, a new article has just been created that talks about VNN. I thought that many of the editors who work with this article would be interested in looking into Vanguard News Network.--Gramaic 2 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)

since when did the definition of a "neo nazi" website be a website that isnt hindu or bhuddist?!?!?
National Vanguard News
Someone has added this site in the external links section. Is it correct to have this site listed in this article? Does it even have anything to do with Stormfront? --Gramaic | Talk 05:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The Stormfront talk page was moved, with all contents, to Stormfront (website) when this was made a disambiguation page. Please do NOT revert this without discussion below because I have already gone through and fixed all links that were on regular Wiki pages and you will break those links. If you disagree with what I did feel free to discuss below -- I am open to others' ideas.
Why the Disambiguation Page was Created
I have requested that Stormfront be moved to Stormfront (online site) and that what is now Stormfront (disambiguation) become Stormfront. This would make it so that someone who typed Stormfront in the search box would first come to the disambiguation page and choose among the four meanings; currently they come to the hate group site but are informed that other meanings exist.
Rationale:
1. There are multiple legitimate meanings for the word, all used with regularity, enough so that each produces hundreds of thousands of hits on the web. When I Google each term I get these hits:
Stormfront and white: 394,000

Stormfront and game: 230,000

Stormfront/Storm front and Joel: 1,154,000

Stormfront/Storm front and rain: 5,424,000
This meets one of the key Wikipedia standards for a disambiguation page being the default page.
2. No guilt by association: Billy Joel's album title, for example, should not be a notation in the opening of an article about a racist hate group, since his presence in the hate group article links him to them, however coincidentally. The fact that Joel comes from a Jewish family that was forced to flee the Nazis makes "routing" the reference to his album through the stormfront.org all the more inappropriate.
The same consideration applies for Stormfront Studios, a video game design company, which took the name as a weather-based mataphor before stormfront.org came to prominence.
3. Although the Billy Joel album is spelled as two words, storm front and stormfront are often used (and accepted) as variant spellings by native speakers of English.
4. Taking the default meaning of the English word and assigning it to stormfront.org is in fact giving the hate site a prominence it does not deserve, and actually serves the people who promote it. Listing it as one of the meanings of the word seems better balanced.
Thanks for considering this, and my apologies for initiating this in the wrong way by copying the page. I commit to fixing the remaining links (I already did the 30 or so that were not talk pages or Wiki admin archives) once the move is made.Coll7 05:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
If you move the article, use the move function, don't just copy and paste the contents, so the article would preserve the page history. Also, the Billy Joel is "Storm Front", not "Stormfront", so, we're not talking about the same word. bogdan | ^Talk 03:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Move made to Stormfront (online site) and Stormfront made a disambiguation page. Please comment here with any concerns, suggestions, etc. Coll7 00:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Search Engines
Has anyone noticed a Scientology tactic? I get unexpected results when say looking for a Scottish Gaelic phrase to this site. For the record I have been extremely surprised and impressed by the intelligence of posters to this site when googling Parsis (and reading out of curiousity their views on anthropology and racialism), etc., but their premise is skewed IMHO - though I am ultimately confused by the various ideologies. Anyway, the Ancient Egyptians were mulattos, et cetera ad infinituum! Was their civilization not superior? Obligitory opinion out of the way, seriously, what's up with the search engine tactic? Khirad 12:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Their argument on the issue of any nonwhite civilization is that you cannot prove a white was not behind those advances. I see it now! A white dude from Germany snuck down to Arabia to invent algebra then humbly let the Arabs take credit for it... VetteDude 03:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment
The webmaster of the stormfront.org website was a wikipedian. Awhile back I became aware of it. I am registered user but to make this post I logged out cleared my cache to make myself anon. When I became aware of it I removed the fact that I am Jewish from my user page because I did not want my user name, which is my name and email name, to be posted on that website. It made me feel bad to do that. Wikipedia never me feel bad before, it was in my humble opinion the best of the web. I was watching CDVF tonight and the vote on an admin request brought it all back. That user who was blocked knows all about proxies and of course he is still around as a sockpuppet. I would change my user name but then I would be a sockpuppet too and lose all my edits so I will just continue on as I am but not 100% comfortable.
one more time: white supremacism and white nationalism
Wikipedia has an article named White nationalism. What can be more natural than linking Stormfront to that article in the very first sentence, by accurately stating that Stormfront is a White nationalist site? What makes you think, and I ask the user Gramaic in particular, that White nationalism, with its own specific wikipedia article, is not more suited in the first sentence about the self-desbribed White nationalist website than White supremacism? Isn't it POVish? Or do you have proof that the Stormfront is more properly described by White supremacism article than the White nationalism one? It is wrong to claim SF has absolutely no ties to White supremacism, but it is not the same thing. The very presence of a separate White nationalism article proves this. The WN article DOES mention notable critique in NPOV way:
Critics, however, argue that white nationalism intersects with, or is a euphemism for, white supremacy.
I tried to make a NPOV compromise, mentioning White supremacism classification by watchdog groups. It wasn't intented as final but rather as a step to making it more NPOV. Probably my note could use some refining, but it got reverted without even some kind of explanation. What's the problem?--Poison sf 18:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, does it fall on deaf ears? One more time: Wikipedia got White supremacism and White nationalism articles. I could maybe understand usage of White supremacism if there was no White nationalism article. But there is. Stormfront is a self-described White nationalist website. What is the reason of not using the reference to more specific notion, with its own Wikipedia article, but rather to a less specific notion, that does in fact partially intersect with White nationalism, but this notable critique is present in the White nationalism article. So it's not like some crucial information is lost. This can and is properly discussed in White nationalism article, in NPOV way. What is the ground for using less specific (at best), but more likely slanderous and inappropriate term? Especially in such context - first sentence? According to whom is it an appropriate usage, without even openly showing the POV (either as I suggested earlier - watchdog groups - or in some other way)? --Poison sf 20:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Poison, we don't allow these groups to self-describe. If most published sources call them white supremacists, and they do, that's what we do too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing. First let me ask a question: who we and what groups in particular? Is there a consistent, non discriminatory policy for such cases? Now, IMO this is not just a question of self-description. And I don't think that we have to imitate published sources and use it as NPOV. If this becomes the criteria, other slanderous parasite words like "hate site" and "bigoted site" may also creep in. And not in NPOV form (citations), but as weasel terms. Will this be encyclopedical? Most publications are not supposed to be encyclopedical, wikipedia is. White nationalism article, not White supremacism article, describes more accutarely what SF is all about. Usage of terms should route scholars into there. If many sources call the site white supremacist, I'm perfectly in agreement that we can mention it. But in my honest opinion, if there's a separate notion of White nationalism covered by an article here, with it's own quirks and controversies (and mentioning alleged relation to White supremacism in the very beginning) this is what has to be present in the first sentence/paragraph, by objective and fair standarts. Information that I already entered in the Controversy section already covers that allegation of "supremacism" and "hate", coming from watchdog groups and retranslated by many other sources. Stormfront fits the notion of White nationalism by any objective criteria. If you think mentions in media sources as supremacist are so important for this to be refected in the very beginning, than I don't know, maybe you have a point. Though, if 1) self identification matches a notion covered by specific wikipedia article and 2) there's no proof so far the content in wikipedia article doesn't match what Stormfront is then IMO it is ridiculous situation to omit this in introduction. Maybe it is possible to work out a compromise, something like "self-described White nationalist board, also commonly referred to as White supremacist in media sources".--Poison sf 21:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
You can look at WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions. I don't have time to lay it all out for you, so you'll have to do the research yourself, but basically it boils down to Stormfront not being regarded as a credible source. We use them as information about themselves (as primary sources), and we can certainly say somewhere in the article that they call themselves white nationalists, but we don't use them as authoritative, third-party sources i.e. we don't call them white nationalists as though that's what others call them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
What I propose here for is not like just citing Stormfront self-description as NPOV. I propose trying to objectively find out what notion covered on wikipedia fits Stormfront more. Using just published sources in such case is a dangerous road. What we got here is mostly just mass media, often internet-based. There's no even any pretense of impartiality or careful picking in terms in most or all available articles (they're not so numerous). Most often they use slanderous terms like hate - bigotry - supremacism - nazis interchangeably, without any consideration where the usage is or is not warranted. There's nothing neutral about it. This should be overridden IMO by objective and neutral consideration which term fits better. There's a White nationalism article on wikipedia. There's a link I've already given to the manifesto, a result of long deliberations and finding out minimal platform that is seen as the common ground by all fit to be White nationalists. What does better describe this position taken by Stormfront, officially endorsed there as kind of "party line", White nationalism or White supremacism? Objective assesment of this is all that is required IMO. Now I understand the problem of getting the fair assessment here. Although BTW same problem exists with Black nationalism and Black supremacism. The latter two also intersect. But people are much more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt in case of Black Nationalist Nation of Islam and do not throw "supremacism" allegations with NPOV pretense. Is it just the mass media who's arbiter here? I don't consider it a good idea - copying POV slander from a few mass media articles not pretending on serious study and making this to appear NPOV at wikipedia. If we cannot agree on what objectively fits best, I suggest not pretending to have NPOV here and state available POVs in a compromise version, like I mentioned previously, with "self-described" and "referred to in this way by mass media". Well, who knows maybe I'm wrong. If this is not to be, then I guess the only thing left is add "disputed" warning and include a statement of denial by Stormfront of attempts to frame it as "supremacist".--Poison sf 22:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
After thinking more about it and considering the relevant policies (e.g. personal research), I admit that "Stormfront is a White nationalist website" is probably not really appropriate. That has to be replaced by something like "claims to be White nationalist" at least. Though I suggest we do not take mass media slander like "White supremacist" too seriously like any kind of objective description, as it is used in biased contexts, far cry from something to call objective research, and is often used interchangeably with other slander. Although it is notable, depending on it like in "Stormfront is white supremacist website" is in essence something as merited as "hateful website", "bigoted website" or "neo-nazi website". I hope something neutral can be worked out here. Whether my suggestions are accepted or rejected, I think it is definitely required to have self-description somewhere in the very beginning, like the first sentence or the first paragraph.--Poison sf 23:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The forum used to have a webpage with a mission statement, some articles and neo-nazi graphics, and some links. They've dropped all of that and now I can't find any self-description beyond the page tilte, "Stormfront White Nationalist Community." Let's see how it looks to make that the proper name of the forum, which works in their own (minimal) claim. -Willmcw 00:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Willmcw, I'm not sure what exactly would qualify. Any allegations of Stormfront being "white supremacist website", are routinely denied by Don Black and moderator staff with comments like "stormfront is a white nationalist website, not white supremacist website". Though some residual content is allegedly available by directly entering links in a webbrowser, it's true that almost everything got redirected to the forum for now. "Mission statement", or at least something as close to it as anything is now available through the external link I added (Position Statements/manifesto).--Poison sf 01:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
More on why I think relatively few available "published sources" are more suitably cited in third person and everything else is copying miserably biased POV into wikipedia. Descriptions as used in publised sources:
"neo-nazi community":
"Stormfront grows a thriving neo-Nazi community" - title
also - "racist website", website visited by white supremacists, hate site
"monitoring the burgeoning community of the racist Stormfront Web site on one of six different computers."
"To the thousands of white supremacists who regularly visit Stormfront"
"By March 1995, that service evolved into Stormfront, the Net's best-known hate site."
-"Electronic Storm", an article on stormfront exclusively
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=551
"white power website":
"One who posted to the Minuteman Project forum on the major white power website Stormfront wrote"
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?aid=12
"hate site":
"They included Don Black, proprietor of Stormfront.org, the most influential hate site on the Internet,"
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=541
"hate site"
For example, the Stormfront Forum, part of a leading hate site run by
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=529
"neo-nazi site"
This February, someone calling himself "Wolfgang Mozart" tried to stir up interest in the American Nationalist Party on stormfront.org, a neo-Nazi site.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=121
"hate website"
"the hate website Stormfront.org is gathering new"
http://www.splcenter.org/donate/giftplan/article.jsp?aid=52
"hate site"
It also includes a withering attack on Don Black's Stormfront hate site.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=208
"hate site"
Since the first hate site was put up by former Klansman Don Black
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=363
"hate site"
the web's most influential hate site, Stormfront.org, has a
"neo-nazi website"
"to neo-Nazi websites like Stormfront.org"
http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2005/10/academic_racist.html
"world of bigotry"
"the gateway to Don Black's online world of bigotry"
also : "supermarket of online hate"
"Since its creation, Stormfront has served as a veritable supermarket of online hate"
http://www.adl.org/poisoning_web/black.asp
"extremist hate site"
"It was Black who would launch Stormfront, the first extremist hate site on the World Wide Web"
http://hatemonitor.csusb.edu/US_Senate/Howard_Berkowitz.html
"white nationalist website" (WOOHOO!!!)
At about the same time, mercian_valkyrie posted a message on Stormfront.org, the world's first and probably largest white nationalist website and online community.
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,1280992,00.html
"Stormfront White Nationalist website"
"The Stormfront White Nationalist website posted a picture of Albert Wendt"
http://www.listener.co.nz/printable,1012.sm
note: in this article the term supremacist does not seem to appear, so I consider this legit example.
There were several other cases, where "White Nationalist" is capitalized and follows right after the word "Stormfront", but the article also contains references to "supremacists". In such case I assumed they're using "White Nationalist" as part of the website title, not as actual description.
Few examples found along the way, that legitimize the term "white nationalist"
"Samuel Francis, a white nationalist writer [...] died on Feb. 15"
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=532
White Nationalists Seek Respectability in Meeting of "Uptown Bad Guys"
(a very interesting article, that uses the term often)
http://www.ferris.edu/isar/Institut/amren/wnational.htm
That's what I've found so far. As it can be seen, there's no consistency. I didn't notice any source actually spending time to ponder what terms and why to pick. They are happy to apply all the politically correct arsenal of slander liberally. "Supremacist site" didn't even appear to me as most favourite one. Would a first sentence like "Stormfront is a neo-nazi website" or, my favourite, "Stormfront is a online supermarket of hate" read good? I doubt. So why is picking another slander from there more appropriate? Why not pick white nationalist description from another source? By numbers alone, looks like "hate site" is most common description. Especially I don't like giving them such credit like copying it as the first sentence, as something supposedly objective. --Poison sf 01:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

a fresh article, using "white nationalist website"
"The Australian forum on Stormfront - a white nationalist site offering advice to activists and dating advice for white singles"
also: "white pride website", "racist website"
"on the usually quiet Australian forum of a US white pride website."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17562781%255E2702,00.html --Poison sf 16:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
USA Today writes:
Today he boasts that it has become the most-visited white supremacist site on the Net.[1].

While we should report that Black (sometime) denies being white supremacist, his denial doesn't mean we souhldn't report that others call the site "white supremacist". NPOV requires that we include all viewpoints. -Willmcw 17:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
2 Willmcw: I read the article you provider. I've my doubts about the reliability: they could misquote him, spicing the text here and there. Based on past experiences, in that particular sentence I smell a frivolous paraphrasing with their own "clarification", especially since it's not a direct quate. But, well, this is just my POV. As you may have noticed, last time I tried a thing I've seen in another article, while browsing here a little: listing more than one description. What do you think? In this way I do not see white supremacism as especially objectionable. The first line now links to articles about 3 most related concepts (it would be a long shot to claim white supremacism is unrelated), and later in the text it is clarified what is preferred as the self-dentification and what is pushed by so called "hate" watching groups (I'm not sure "watchdog" is inoffensive, but I took the term from elsewhere). I guess I would be more or less ok with something like this, as far as this name-calling issue is concerned. I'll see now what is other parties take on it.--Poison sf 01:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)