Jump to content

Talk:Stormfront (website)/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

POV

This article seems strongly biased. It's as if the Coke article was mostly sourced from anti soft drink organizations. WP:BIASED recommends to at least use quotes if a source seems biased. I think that at least some other editors agree that it looks biased. I gather that from the fact that so many sources are given for the first three adjectives: it means that people contest them. Politics, philosophy, religions are topics where people strongly take side and opinions shouldn't be turned into absolute truths. For example, the source http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2005/summer/electronic-storm uses acerbic and sarcastic language which suggests that it's not a neutral source (it doesn't mean it's invalid). In particular, the line "Details of yet another nefarious Jewish conspiracy" is sarcastic unless the splcenter suggests that there are actually nefarious Jewish conspiracies.Ne Yorker (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain in what way you think the article is biased. Your only example is that the SPLC is used as a source. But that is actually a issue of reliable sourcing. TFD (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
At least some of the sources are ideological opponents. SPLC, Anti-Defamation League, Jewish Journal, activist Raphael Cohen-Almagor... Don't you think that an organization fighting hate speech defines itself as having a strong bias against a hate site? The issue is not if the sources are reliable or biased but if opinions are distinguished from facts (quotes, in-text attribution). Ne Yorker (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs (what most of this article is about). Ne Yorker (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Yep, thats what the policy says. Is there anything in particular you consider ought to have in text attribution?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is something in particular: the text lead. "Stormfront is a white nationalist, white supremacist and neo-Nazi internet forum" could be rewritten as "Stormfront is an internet forum variously described as white nationalist, white supremacist and/or neo-Nazi". Ne Yorker (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The fact that Stormfront is a white nationalist, white supremacist, neo-Nazi, racial hate site, is well sourced, neutral, and not in doubt. Is there a specific proposal for improvement? If not, then the tags should be removed. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I question your neutrality. You mostly edit race-related pages [white privilege, race (human classification), caucasian race, race and genetics, nations and intelligence) or political (gun control). You also add the ADL as source (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_control&diff=prev&oldid=595508530). Why? Are you an activist? Ne Yorker (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes. It's always the same tag team of anti-White editors on every page. 211.169.83.67 (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't speak for the others, but if your first inclination is to start making allegations about being an activist, then I'm inclined to avoid the rush and start disregarding you now. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the pov template. Not something a new editor should add to an article, and Ne Yorker clearly doesn't understand or agree with our policies. Dougweller (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not "anti-white" to question the notion that blacks are inferior. (And WP, being neutral, must not try to promote ANY viewpoint on the issue) mike4ty4 (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
"Welcome to Stormfront" says, "We are White Nationalists...." How is it biased to call them that? TFD (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
No but about 500 reliable sources claim that they are. Bias would be to only include their own view of what they are and exclude what everybody else thinks they are.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
And how do we discern whether those "500 reliable sources" (only 13 of the purported which appear in the references) are not biased themselves? Any source can state an opinion about what they think something is. That doesn't make it indisputable fact. 2602:306:C4EF:2BA0:5076:566F:FA8C:F2A2 (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Our sources are not required to be neutral. WP:NPOV specifies that we, as editors, must be "neutral" by sticking to the sources. And that's what we've done here.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Stormfront owner : Breivik was banned from Stormfront 3 years before his killings

According to Don Black (Stormfront owner) :

We did have a user account in 2008 which probably belonged to Breivik, but he only posted four times before being banned. He never even tried to come back after that (even banned users can log in, showing up on our records). [...] In fact, his closest confederate was Jewish radical Hans Rustad. Just before his murderous attack, Breivik wrote: 

   "We must influence other cultural conservatives to take our anti-racist, pro-homosexual, pro-Israeli line of thought. When this direction is taken, we can take to the next level."

The SPLC also included the names of other murderers who had long been previously banned from Stormfront. They also threw in another particularly horrendous nutcase, Buford Furrow, who shot into a Jewish daycare center in 1999. He had never posted on Stormfront.

Our moderators and I have repeatedly posted that we will not tolerate any advocacy or even suggestion of illegal violence. We are diligent in removing such whenever we find it, and we want to help visitors understand fully how horrifically damaging this is to our efforts. And we work to provide a safe, supportive community for those who join us.

Don Black's Guidelines for Posting since 1995:

DO NOT advocate or suggest any activity which is illegal under U.S. law.

Before you post anything, remember that words have consequences, both for you and others. This is true even if they're posted pseudonymously on a discussion board.

Don't post anything you wouldn't want attributed to you in a court of law, quoted on the front page of the New York Times, or read by your mother. [...] Interestingly, the SPLC has inspired terrorism itself, including one murderous attack by a "gay rights" terrorist against the Family Research Council last year, which the SPLC had designated a "hate group" because it opposed same-sex marriage.

Pleading guilty to the charges, Corkins told the FBI after the shooting he intended to "kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-fil-A sandwiches in victims’ faces." Prosecutors said that Corkins planned to leave FRC after the attack and go to another conservative group to continue the reign of terror. A handwritten list of three other groups was found with Corkins’ belongings. An investigation of Corkins’ computer found that he identified his targets on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website. [...] Source : https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1036143/?postcount=1#post12038498 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurent de Lyon (talk • contribs) 11:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine, then we can discuss quoting Black using one of the independent sources, not the one you tried to use several months ago. Breivik was a user at one point, and may have continued to read and even edit under a different name. Sadly we block people here who manage to continue to edit. But the material you removed is sourced to several mainstream media outlets and should not have been removed. The Corkins murder has nothing to do with the Stormfront website so is irrelevant here. Doug Weller (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
He was still a registered user, which is all the article says. However I find the coverage of this topic in the article implicit synthesis. It implies a connection between reading Stormfront and terrorism, without saying what it is. If we have a expert who explains what connection s/he sees, we should put that in and can include Black's rebuttal. TFD (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I disagree - the article does not say that there's a connection between reading Stormfront and terrorism. It doesn't even say that Stormfront users are terrorists. It simply states a fact - that a handful of murderers, including at least one mass murderer, that committed so-called "hate crime" murders, were Stormfront users. It's not an opinion, and frankly, I'm surprised that anyone finds the inclusion of that fact controversial. If anything, not including that paragraph could be construed as a form of censorship; ie, not wanting the truth about these individuals being drawn to a white power website on the page. Rockypedia (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller, you said we can discuss quoting Black using one of the independent sources. I suggest this one : 

[...]Don Black, a former Ku Klux Klan member and the founder of Stormfront, told ABCNews.com the Southern Poverty Law Center's report was "ludicrous" and said the number of murdered was inflated because they included Breivik, who he said posted only a few times on the site before he was banned.

"There are any number of websites who have had murderers come through their ranks," Black said, naming several popular social media and online personals websites.

"We have had a few people who have gone on shooting sprees. Most were domestic issues that didn't have anything to do with politics," Black said.

Frazier Glenn Miller, the man who allegedly killed three people outside two Jewish sites in Kansas last weekend, posted more than 12,000 times on a different racist web forum, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Miller was charged this week with one count of capital murder and a second count of premeditated first degree murder. He has not yet entered a plea.

Black, who said he knows Miller from decades ago, said he wasn't welcome on the Stormfront website since he became a "government informant" in exchange for a plea deal and testified against several white supremacists at a 1988 sedition trial.

"He was certainly unwelcome and I couldn't imagine why he would think he is welcome. He was a big time government informant," Black said. "He wouldn’t have been allowed to post the stuff he had [on VNN] on our board."

Stormfront is staffed with moderators, Black said, who "do not tolerate illegal violence, even the suggestion of illegal violence."

"Anybody who says anything like that gets shown the door," he said.

Black said his website is a place for white nationalists to "discuss the truth as we see it" and if anything, may act as a deterrent.

"The kind of people that are more likely to go out and do something and go on a shooting spree are by themselves typically," he said. "If they become part of our community they are less likely to do something because they have a support group.

Source : http://abcnews.go.com/US/stormfront-website-posters-murdered-100-people-watchdog-group/story?id=23365815 Laurent de Lyon (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Far, far too long and clearly self-serving. Of course Black said that. He's not going to admit that Stormfront incites racial violence. Or that it tolerates racial slurs, eg this reply to an anti-racist:"Jesus is going to cast traitors like you into Hell along with all the evil savages who ever dared to beniger his people." Or [1] - loads of posts attacking Jews, from "jews double-park all the time" to "seems the judes have finally started to wear out their welcome and people are getting sick of them." Or [2] where the poster substitutes 'Jews' for 'News'. This is why we don't take Black's word for it, and in fact the article should not state as fact that "Stormfront keeps the rhetoric in its forums muted, discourages racial slurs, and prohibits violent threats and descriptions of anything illegal," It certainly allows loads of racial slurs. Doug Weller (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Indeed as I said the article does not say there's a connection between Stormfront and terrorism, it implies it. If it does not, then why mention it? If we could determine that most mass murderers had at one time or another eaten carrots, would you add it to that article? TFD (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I would, if you could find a reference that their carrot-eating was higher than that of the general population. But this is an article about a particular website with a very narrow purpose, so more to your point, if Stormfront was a website that attracted people that were either very anti- or pro-carrot-eating, I would include the fact that most users ate carrots as well. Even more to the point, killing people based on their race or religion, especially killing more than one person at a time, is a character trait that is not shared by very many people, while most people have eaten carrots. So from any angle, your analogy is hopelessly flawed.Rockypedia (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
You would still need to explain the connection. For example, some editors find it significant that Jews were "over-represented" in Communism, Hollywood, banking, the slave trade, etc., while blacks over over-represented in criminal activity, and add it to those articles. While not explicitly saying it is because Jews and blacks are evil, it conveys that implicit message. It is implied synthesis, which is contrary to policy. TFD (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Again, I don't think that analogy holds, because Communism, Hollywood, etc. don't have some central message about Jews. The Stormfront website is there to provide a gathering place for people who believe the white race is superior to other races - so the fact that there's been hate crimes committed by registered members of the site is certainly notable. With regard to blacks being over-represented in criminal activity, there's evidence that that's because of police officers over-arresting them, and plenty of other factors, and yeah, I would actually note all of those facts in an appropriate place, with references. Rockypedia (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Stormfront view of the world and what they want can be read in their introduction for new Stormfront members :

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t968576/

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t968583/

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t968594/

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t968596/

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1001939/

Unlike Breivik, Stormfront doesn't support Israel. That's why I still don't understand the association with Stormfront. In Europe, pro-Israeli extreme right-wing leaders (such as Geert Wilders) believe in Eurabia stuff, a vision not shared by Stormfront.

Laurent de Lyon (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

And as I've shown above, what Stormfront wants the world to think about it and its posters, and the actual posts on it, are quite different. It appears that User:Laurent de Lyon either doesn't understand this - or is perhaps a user? Doug Weller (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stormfront (website). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Fraktur font

Regarding this: "The site's logo is written in the Fraktur font." I thought that was odd because we show an image captioned "Stormfront's logo" that is obviously not Fraktur. The cited sources says "The home page, in Fraktur font..." but that seemed even more unlikely, as Fraktur is pretty much unreadable. I checked the site itself and got a blank page. The Wayback Machine snapshot from January 2015 (when the cited source was published) shows two logos, the one we have, and the one in the info box at the top of this article, which does indeed use Fraktur. Since the cited source is wrong, I thought the best thing would be to just say "The site uses the Fraktur font" and leave it at that. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Far right politics category

Removing this category because of sock puppetry is bureaucracy run amok. Is there another reason not to include it?That man from Nantucket (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm not going to answer on my talk page and here, so I removed it from my talk page. You waited a whole 35 minutes before declaring I've refused to answer. Try a little good faith. The category has been removed by enough different editors that it merits an actual discussion on this page. So let's try that, huh? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you might have responded here first, as I assume you saw my question? No matter now, water under the bridge. Why has it been removed? The only reason that I've seen so far has been that it was added by a sock. If there is another, I'd like to know the reason why. It seems like it is an appropriate category.That man from Nantucket (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 35 minutes dude. Chill out. I made other edits in the interim to other articles. My sole purpose here is not to jump when you tell me to jump. The category is far right politics. What political activities in this article merit including it in that category? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Show some common courtesy the next time someone asks a question instead of reverting and moving on. To quote Wikipedia's definition of "far right politics", to whit According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, in liberal democracies, the political Right opposes socialism and social democracy. Right-wing parties include conservatives, Christian democrats, classical liberals, nationalists and, on the far Right, racists and fascists. Yes, I think that fits the definition of Stormfront quite nicely, and any claim to the contrary is myopic. That man from Nantucket (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Common courtesy? No room for you to even say that phrase. So, on to the actual topic. Nice dictionary definition, but my question was not what does far right mean. My question is: What political activities in this article merit including it in that category? Merely believing something may not be enough. If it isn't acted on in a significant way, what makes it any different from including someone in a category about chefs because they microwave a Hot Pocket. Both prepare food, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah this definitely isn't the right way to go about things. That being said, if the submitter ever calms down and does this the right way, I would be in favor of including that category. It's appropriate, IMO. Just my two cents. But first, learn how to use Wikipedia. Rockypedia (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The right way? I am doing things the right way. I posted a question here asking for a discussion yet there are a few editors, an admin included, who seem more intent on fucking with a human being who is socking by giving them the silent treatment than working on the actual article. Is that how Wikipedia is supposed to work? I think not. Regardless, I do thank both you and Nighshift36 for at least acknowledging the actual subject of this section, though your support for the category shouldn't be conditional on my Wikipeida education. If there is no objection here, I will add the category back in. However I will wait a reasonable period for others to voice their opinions. That man from Nantucket (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you posted a question here, and waited mere minutes before losing your composure over lack of immediate response. No, you're not doing things the right way (hint, coming to my page after a few minutes threatening to "escalate" things if I don't immediately respond isn't doing things the right way). And no, the matter is being discussed, so you shouldn't restore anything yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is you reverted me without bothering to to answer one of two queries, without even as much as an edit summary. Maybe you thought I was the sock? That is the only reason I can think of that would explain your behavior. But enough with the finger pointing. This article on Stormfront clearly mentions political figures are members as well as the organization being mentioned in several political "events", not to mention the infobox that states this article is "Part of the Politics and elections and Politics series on Neo-fascism. Even a simple search yields several RS mentioning Stormfront in this context. What would convince you this category is applicable? I've asked myself the exact opposite question, and for the life of me I can't find anything to the contrary.That man from Nantucket (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm done listening to you bitch about the revert. Give it a rest. I see the article mentioning political figures, but that still isn't answering my question. Saying that they gained members when Obama was elected isn't political activity. The owner of the site personally donating $500 (a fairly insignificant sum) to a failed candidate isn't evidence of the website engaging in political activity. Gaining traffic during an election isn't evidence of the website engaging in political activity. This article is about THE WEBSITE. The website is just a forum for racists to talk to each other. They may express political opinions on there that are far right, but the website itself (the actual subject of the article) hasn't really engaged in political activities. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC

SNOW CLOSE
(non-admin closure) Full disclosure: came here through the help desk, on which the nominator posted.

Only 6 days, but no activity for 4. None has explicitly supported the "oppose" side, and the oppose argument seems to be that people simply discussing is not political activity. The general opinion seems to view that argument as pilectomic (frankly, hard to not agree). More importantly, sources describing the subject as far-right have gone uncontested - and whether reliable sources are wrong or not is (almost) not our business. Add the category.

It seems to me that a lot of noise was made out of nothing because two editors were somewhat stressed. Chill down, and follow the BRD standard before escalating issues in the future. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Should this article be added to the category Far-right politics in the United States? That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Support It should be apparent from reading the article that Stormfront, among other things is associated with far-right politics. There are a multitude of reliable sources stating this, such as this one and this one. That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Undecided: Since this article is about the website, I think we should see some direct connection for actual political activities by the site. The 2 sources mentioned above talk about right wing, but fail to make the connection to political activity beyond registered users talking to each other. Merely having a forum for people to discuss it doesn't seem like "politics" to me. Also, I think this is too early for a RFC. We've had less than a day of discussion. Someone here is impatient. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion Political activity isn't confined to 'standing for office' or engaging in mainstream politics. There are numerous refs in the article to political positions that are wholly 'far-right'. The argument against seems wholly semantic. Pincrete (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
That a 'forum for discussion' can't be political, what is being discussed on the forum? Flower arranging? Cookery? A newspaper can be described as 'just discussing', does that mean that the newspaper doesn't have a political position? But RS is the killer argument for me. Pincrete (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Except that I've made no real argument against in the RFC. I clearly (and in bold print) said I was undecided and have asked if there was more evidence about activity beyond users talking to each other. You took it upon yourself to declare my questions and request to be an argument against. Yes, much of the discussion on there is political. Some of it is not.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Off topic
I was referring to the discussion above as much as the RfC. If there isn't disagreement, why is there an RfC? Pincrete (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Why is there a RFC? That's a very good question. A single editor decided that we needed one after less than 24 hours of discussion. I asked him the couple of questions I've asked in this and he avoided them, choosing instead to open a RFC, which is a much slower process than simply having a discussion and gaining consensus. Then, the OP said he'd wait a "reasonable amount of time", which amounted to about 6 hours before opening a RFC. So please, don't blame my asking a couple of questions for the fact that we have a RFC. This is because of impatience. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I started the RfC because not due to impatience, but mostly to seek other opinions. I'm perfectly aware that RfCs take longer, but the level of antagonism and condescending tone was being ratcheted up to a point that I felt only an RfC would ameliorate.That man from Nantucket (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • You mean the tone that went straight downhill when you popped a blood vessel because it took 35 minutes to answer you? Then you turned around and waited a whole 6 hours for this. Oh, you're plenty impatient my friend. WP:3O would have probably been a better choice. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I suppose I shouldn't reply, but I'll go against my better judgment on this subject one last time. After this I shan't respond unless it's about this article. WP:BRD is how content disagreements are supposed to be handled. I had opened the section above and you reverted the article content without even the courtesy of a reply. Not even a "I'll reply later", and when I asked on your talk page, you removed my question without even an edit summary saying you intend to respond. No reply or even an indication you would reply, yet you had time to make several other unrelated edits (and you have the gall to call me impatient???) Here's some unsolicited advice for you, since you seem to be keen on dishing it out. If you don't have the time to discuss an edit, don't make the edit in the first place.That man from Nantucket (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 35 minutes. And don't talk about BRD. That had been removed multiple times before you jumped in. We were past the B and the R. You just skipped the D part. Yes, I'm calling you impatient. The fact that you are so concerned that I didn't immediately jump to your question and actually attended to something else first supports that. Here's some unsolicited advice for you: Discuss more than a day before opening a RFC. Or actually, just discuss period. Most of your "discussion" in that brief few hours before you jumped straight to RFC was bitching whining about the fact that I didn't immediately answer your demands. So, impatient.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support It is one of the major websites used by the U.S. far right. Also, agree with Pincrete. Far right politics is not just about fielding candidates, but covers other activities as well. TFD (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Not necessarily. That seems like an arbitrary line to draw. Rockypedia (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I've been to the forums at that site and read what the regular users have to say. I suggest anyone weighing in on this debate do the same (it's free, easy, and you don't have to register). It's fair to say that the clear majority of the discussions there are political, and that virtually all of the people discussing politics come at every issue from a far-right perspective. Granted, that's a primary source, but it's conclusive, complete, and convincing. I'm pretty sure I could find a reliable secondary source or several that talk about what's going on there. I see no reason that category shouldn't be added. Rockypedia (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest using TOR or some anonymizer service. Visiting that site might get you on a list of some sort. I'd also warn you that you might feel like you lost a little bit of your soul after doing so.That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
So true. I've had first-hand experience. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stormfront fraktur

Fraktur.. This style of writing was used all over in german speaking countries before the second world war. Actually the nazis abolished it, during world war 2. it is speculated that this move was done to make german more readable all over europe. The idea that fraktur was prefered by the nazis in the 20s is pure speculation and does not matter in any respect as it was the prefered font for german speaking countries opposed to antiqua used in latin descendant countries. Antiqua was even used for instance for french, or italian words embedded in german fraktur text. So i propose to delete the phrase. Haschka (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

URL

I came across this article with no URL, either in an External links section, nor in the infobox. I therefore I added the URL to the infobox, albeit not as a hyperlink. I then saw it had been removed prior to my edit a couple of times recently with edit summaries such as "we don't link to hate speech", and "We must not encourage more people to visit this harmful website". However note that Wikipedia is not censored and "some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, 'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content." ----Pontificalibus 12:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The website URL is quite clearly visible in the graphic in the info box. If you are wanting to add another instance of the URL in the infobox per BRD wouldn't the onus be on you to establish that? What would linking or listing the URL add to the infobox that the image doesn't already say? --AdamF in MO (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
The image is not sufficient - it doesn't comply with WP:ACCESSIBILITY for a start. There is no policy-based reason whatsoever not to include the URL in a website infobox. WP:NOTCENSORED is abundantly clear that you have no grounds to remove the URL. As to BRD, it's your removal that is bold, and has been reverted.----Pontificalibus 07:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I have returned to the status quo version of the page while discussion is underway. You have a flawed understanding of the BRD process. Please do not revert again. --AdamF in MO (talk) 07:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@Adamfinmo: And by that edit you have now violated the 3RR rule, congratulations. Do you have any comment to make on the substantive issue - could you explain how your removal of this URL accords with WP:NOTCENSORED...can you provide any policy-based reason at all why an article about a website should not include the website's url (or should only include it in an image file)? ----Pontificalibus 07:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I was not in violation of 3rr anywhere on this page. The edit warring discussion can take place in the proper places. --AdamF in MO (talk) 07:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I have done some searching around in the boards and such and I think that I am wrong about this. I have self-reverted to your addition of the URL into the infobox. I had thought I saw here that we didn't link to stormfront.org ever. Apparently this is the only article where we would link to it. I was wrong. --AdamF in MO (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

DDOS attacks on the site and the current outage

Stormfront is currently down with DNS errors. For a few days prior to that, the site was acting very slow like it was under a DDOS attack. The slowness started at the same time that cyberterrorists and black supremacists were hitting other sites such as Gab, The Daily Stormer, etc. So it would be appreciated if there was any reliable information about this. The SPLC has a page on this, which is suspicious that they would be the first site to have credible-sounding inside information about the site. 

2606:A000:8687:CE00:F889:6704:7119:97B5 (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I've seen that story floating around right-wing news sites, but anything that wasn't right-wing has already accepted that that was just an excuse by Stormfront to deny that they were losing their webhosting. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
And the bit about cyberterrorists and black supremacists is, well, "fake news". Doug Weller talk 16:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
It isn't "fake news," but my personal observations. Please help keep such pejorative terms off of here.2606:A000:8687:CE00:F889:6704:7119:97B5 (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
If they'd lost their webhosting, it would already be showing. 105.5.128.180 (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Its domain status is marked as "clientHold" according to WHOIS. What significance does this hold? 108.30.175.182 (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Andrew Anglin [3] is saying it's the same domain status change that happened to The Daily Stormer... still a bit of a guess at this time though, what's actually happening. --Nanite (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

"was"

I don't disagree that the usage of the word "was" is inaccurate, since the site is, well, effectively gone for the time being. However, it's not particularly unlikely that the site will be back soon, on the "dark web" if nothing else. Just something to bear in mind. CompactSpacez (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should at least have some sort of statement from the site's owner before treating it as history so soon. We don't yet know what the situation is, and the few news articles I've seen written on the subject so far (including the one cited) are purely speculative. I suggest, at least for the time being, treating the site as active but with a note mentioning its current inaccessibility at least until more substantive reports on the situation appear. Thoughts? 108.30.175.182 (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, they only lost their domain name. The site is indeed there if you know the IP address. They have not lost their host yet. According to a notice on their site, they are working with their attorneys to try to reclaim their domain name.2606:A000:8687:CE00:7856:19D9:F0D2:64ED (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I just checked and the site is both accessible and active. I'm changing the "was" to "is." I do not know re. the status of the "seized" part, so leaving that to others to decide. Phantom in ca (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant information.

Following an April 2009 shooting, Richard Poplawski, a poster on the site, was charged with ambushing and killing three Pittsburgh Police officers and attempting to kill nine others.[44]

That shooting was the result of a domestic dispute, it had nothing to do with StormFront or White Nationalism. Why does it matter that the gunman had an account on StormFront? He also had an account on MySpace and I don't see any mention of him in the Wikipedia article about MySpace. Right now this article seems to imply some kind of guilt by association which is not what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. --9999HP999MP (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedian. I had a look at the cited source, and even a few others which aren't cited there. It seems that Poplawski's affiliation with various right wing factions including the now defunct Stormfront website were aspects peculiar to this incident, such that they contribute to an understanding of this article's subject, and were widely reported on by reliable sources. Wikipedia makes inclusions based on facts which are notable enough to warrant their addition to the project. None of the sources I checked noted his membership at myspace. They did however mention his membership and the nature of his postings at Stormfront. That's why it is included here. I don't see a case to warrant its removal since it is substantiated by sources and serves to shed information on notable persons and events connected with the subject of this article. Lots of people have a myspace page, whilst a relatively few number of people maintained an account at Stormfront, which is why lots of news sources commented on the fact. Other editors will look at your proposal to remove the information and the consensus of those editors will determine whether or not to remove the information. Edaham (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
"None of the sources I checked noted his membership at myspace." That's strange, because that's how they found his StormFront account in the first place. You may want to see https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t435052/#post4789744 As for your claim that "Lots of people have a myspace page, whilst a relatively few number of people maintained an account at Stormfront" what does it matter? By the way StormFront has 327,433 registered users, obviously nowhere near as many as on MySpace but not exactly "a few". The wikipedia article mentions that he had a MySpace page. The article also mentions that the shooting was caused by a domestic dispute between Poplawski and his mother about a family dog not StormFront. One of the citations in that article even claims that Poplawski was "neither far right nor far left... just confused" and that "He kept up a friendship with Aaron Vire, a black man, yet despised race-mixing." Why do you feel it is necessary to mention Richard Poplawski in an article about StormFront when the shooting clearly had nothing to do with StormFront?--108.21.11.114 (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The requirement is not that the information is relevant, but that it is considered relevant in secondary sources. TFD (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Stormfront back online

Considering that Stormfront is back online, someone more familiar with the dates should update the history section, with emphasis to the illegal seazing of the domain by its registrar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.149.242 (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Illegal? You have a court case that says that, or is that simply your opinion? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Illegal? Yes, because a registrar has a contract with ICANN for a websites registration concession, but nowhere does that concession give the discretionary right to decide what site can be registered or not based on political reasons. The only legitimate reason to refuse registration is if the website has illegal contents in the country of the registrar. Nota bene, a concession for the service of registration does not give any ownership of the internet nor right to decide who can have a website on the internet or not, it only gives the right to perform a service, without any discretionary rights for the registrar. Network Solutions baselessly appropriated a right that is not theirs under the contract of their concession. Hosting is a different thing, but registering is the issue here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.149.242 (talk)‎ (talk • contribs) 11:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
So, I take it your answer is, your opinion. Rockypedia (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
That would appear to be the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
It is the obvious logical implication of the agreements and contracts regulating the Internet. After those facts were presented to them, Network Solutions understood that they would lose in court, and backed down.
IF you have a reliable source that states "After those facts were presented to them, Network Solutions understood that they would lose in court, and backed down" or something to that effect, feel free to add it to the page. But if you don't, then your statement falls under WP:OR - original research, and as such, won't be added to the article. Rockypedia (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Network Solutions will never admit that this was the reason (although I know for a fact that this argumentation was presented to them), but only very naive people would believe that they backtracked from their initial deregistration of Stormfront for reason of freedom of speech principles... It is interesting though, that the information that Stormfront is back online, keeps being deleted from this page...
If you want to edit here, start learning how the site works. Information that is cited to a reliable source is fine; anything you add that's not sourced can be challenged and removed. It's not "interesting" that uncited information is removed; it's site policy. Second, edits like this one aren't going to convince anyone that you're here to improve the article. Third, start signing your posts with ~~~~. And finally, on a punctuation note, you don't end a sentence with "..." - only one period is required. Rockypedia (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Are you saying that I have to give a "reliable source" for the fact that Stormfront is back online, when it is there for anyone to see? Just click on https://www.stormfront.org

How can that fact be challenged?! This is not impartial site policy, this is clear political bias! OK, I will give the web adress next time. I hope it is reference enough.

As for your example "not convincing anyone" (who is "anyone"?), why would the liberal antifa narrative about Stormfront be the only one on Wikipedia? Why can't Stormfronter's views about the forum have at least equal status? Why cannot it be said that Stormfronters don't view it in the way of the description given at the start of this page, but as a site for the preservation of the White race? Is it also "site policy" to only acknowledge the views inimical to Stormfront, not those which would give a definition corresponding to how Stormfronters themselves view the site ?

Aha, I see that you have now blocked the possibility for non registered users to put on this page the exact and true information, verifiable by one click, that Stormfront is back online.
It is mentioned several times on the page now, in a proper fashion. Move along and drop the stick. Jarkeld (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
NOW it is, finally! After much insisting. But only at one place, deep in the page. The introductory "In August 2017, Stormfront's registrar seized its domain name due to complaints that it promoted hatred and that some of its members were linked to murder" is still not updated with the news.

Still, why is Stormfront only defined with antifa/liberal definitions, not at least equally with a definition representing the view of Stormfronters themselves: that it is a site dedicated to the preservation of the White race? This is a clear political bias.

Go read WP:RS. All of it. And don't bother replying again until you've done your homework. Rockypedia (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
As for references, the first sentence of the page says, for example, that it "is" a hate site, because someone said so, somewhere.

Wouldn't it be more objective and impartial to say that it is considered a hate site by some, not that it "is" a hate site, and then say what Stormfronters themselves consider it to be? And I must say that some of the references in the article are ridiculous. For example the last sentence of the page about "Stormfront promoting islamophobia" refers to a page where the only reference to Stormfront's islamophobia is a single post from some obscure forum member in some obscure forum thread.

You must be a fast reader. Rockypedia (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
How about updating the introductory paragraph with: "The site came back online on September 29, 2017."

I think that such introductory paragraph is misleading without this essential information, wouldn't you say? If you said in that paragraph that the domain was seized in august, you must update it with the actual information, or the reader who will not bother to read the whole page, where the new info is burried deep, might get the impression that the site is still down.

I would ask you to read WP:UNDUE, but since you ignored my previous request to read WP:RS, I think I'm done wasting my time here. Have a nice day. Rockypedia (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
How is the claim that Stormfront "is" white supremacist, neo-nazi or a hate site, a "neutral point of view"?
It could only be neutral if it was formulated differently. For example that it is considered such and such by these and those, but considered as a site about the preservation of the White race by Strormfronters themselves. THAT would be neutral! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.149.242 (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2017‎ (UTC)
We going to present what Stormfront is according to what neutral reliable sources say about it, that it's a racist white supremacist neo-Nazi hate site. That's the end of that discussion.
We're not here to be a forum about your ideas of what Wikipedia should do, we have our policies and we will follow them. Any additional discussion on this point from you will be deleted as a waste of everyone's time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Stormfront return in lead

Hi,

I thought this would be a no brainer but since there is a disagreement I am posting this here.

I believe that the Stormfront return should be in the lead for the following reasons:

1. It is directly related to the closure of Stormfront which is also present in the lead
2. If it is not in the lead, the lead misrepresents the status of Stormfront for users who don't read the text indicating its return further down in the article
3. There are at least two RS reporting on it (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/30/stormfront-webs-oldest-white-supremacist-site-reem/ and https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nazis-are-back-online_us_59d40719e4b06226e3f46941 --IntelligentName (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
It's in the lead because the domain name seizure was reported in hundreds of reliable sources. The return was mentioned by two sources that generally aren't even accepted as reliable sources when there's a contentious topic being discussed; nevertheless, they appear to be the best sources available. See WP:UNDUE. Rockypedia (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
What is in the lead?! Certainly not the info that Stormfront is back online. So, it's not important that it is an easily verifiable fact that Stormfront is back online, only that sources for that information are not "reliable" according to you. LOL! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.149.242 (talk)
And to address point 2 above: Wikipedia's purpose is not so that people looking for the status of Stormfront don't get confused as to whether it's up or down. Start your own Stormfrontstatus.com website for that, if you feel that strongly about it. Rockypedia (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I thought that the purpose of Wikipedia was to give accurate information instead of misleading people. But if you say it isn't... You are obviously a political activist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.149.242 (talk)
sign your posts and please don't mix bulleted lists with indents or place unnessary carriage returns between indented text as it causes problems for page readers. Also please read wp:5p and please understand it. This isn't 4chan, Reddit, stormfront or wherever it isnyou normally go to bark about who's getting up your nose with their politics. Non partisan editing includes assuming good faith. That means, insofar as possible, not accusing people of, or even seeing political opposition or partisan bias among your editorial colleagues. If you have sources which merit inclusion, please list them in this thread. Thanks.Edaham (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Can good faith be assumed indefinitely, even if it is clear that there is none? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.149.242 (talk)
 Yes, but questions about policy related to this matter are not a subject for this talk page. Please check the link on assuming good faith, read the link on using indents and lists and for the last time, please sign your posts. Edaham (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by your first sentence? And why not just put the info that Stormfront is back online in the lead? It would be the obvious right thing to do for reasons explained by me and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.149.242 (talk)
You don't know what I mean because you haven't checked and carefully examined the information I linked to regarding out policies. The info you are proposing to add is already in the article. I reviewed the current wording of the lead and altered it to reflect the fact that the disruption of its services were not permanent. This is a more than sufficient and accurate summary of the article's contents. Your insistence on not signing your posts properly is disruptive. Please read wp:signature and specifically, WP:SIGFORGE, which states: If you encounter a user whose signature is disruptive or appears to be impersonating another account, it is appropriate to ask that user to consider changing their signature to meet the requirements of this policy. When making such a request, always be polite, and assume good faith. Do not immediately assume that the user has intentionally selected a disruptive or inappropriate signature. If you are asked to change your signature, please avoid interpreting a polite request as an attack. Since the success of Wikipedia is based on effective teamwork, both parties should work together to find a mutually acceptable solution.. Thank you. Edaham (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't see anything in the wording suggesting that the disruption is not permanent. And even that would be completely inadequate because, not only is it not permanent but Stormfront is effectively back online. There is no logical and rational explanation for Wikipedia to so stubbornly refusing to put that info in the lead, other than complete bias. Neutrality my foot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.149.242 (talk)
161.59.149.242, your commentary is becoming disruptive. You are exhibiting WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior in addition to refusing to sign your posts. Since your question has been answered, repeatedly, your comments have moved into WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS territory. If you continue to comment without signing your comments, they are subject to being deleted as a violation of WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:DISRUPTION. Please consider this to be your only warning to cease this behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • IP editor, please sign your comments by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the comment. The system will automatically add your IP address and a time/date stamp. If you wish your comments to be signed "INCOGNITO", please register an account by that name. In the meantime, please do not use that as a "sig", as it is not your account name. I have removed the instances where you have done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Why the hell should everyone be able to see my IP?! What an impertinent demand! Fortunately, it is not really "my" IP... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.149.242 (talk)
We can all see your IP of 161.53.149.242 whether you use the four tildes (~~~~) or not. The signature is just a courtesy to other editors reading your comments to make it easier to figure out which comments are yours. If you want to hide your IP address, you should register an account using the create an account link at the top of every page. Rockypedia (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
This edit here Makes it even clearer that the disruption to the services of this hate site were not permanent. We do aim as editors to make the information we present as clear as possible and if you have a suggestion for making it even better please present your suggestions in a "change x to y" format, and your proposal will be taken into prompt consideration by watchers of this page. Thanks for your contributions to the project and don't forget to sign your posts. Edaham (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent reverts

Stative verbs like denying usually are not used in continuous form like this, its a very awkward usage Stative verbs from the British Council. Even as a present participle adjective it is an extremely awkward and strange usage for a state of mind verb with an inanimate subject. Anything like "She was an understanding person" would still generally modify people or animal nouns. I wasn't able to think of any English language usages to support the content being restored to the article. Seraphim System (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I've changed the term, and provided sources. If the form of the word is wrong change the form, don't remove the word. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
It's a little better, but if simply changing the form would fix this I would have done it myself. It's not a holocaust denial forum, some of the content promotes holocaust denial. We're not calling it an "Islamophobia forum" either - Holocaust denial just doesn't work in this sentence, but anti semitic does. Besides that, with this restored link antisemitism in one form or another is mentioned three times in the first sentence.Seraphim System (talk) 04:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
So? It's an anti-semitic forum. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
It is mostly a white nationalist forum (founded by a former Alabama KKK leader). That really needs to be given more weight. Also, since 1995, Stormfront members have been "disproportionately responsible for some of the most lethal hate crimes and mass killings". Of course, this started to receive a lot more attention after Anders Breivik, who is identified as a neonazi. However, the addition of Holocaust denial seems to be cherry picked from a story about Google's algorithm. Most sources don't describe it as a "Holocaust denial forum". Also, this article was published in 2016, but I'm still getting pages of top results from Stormfront, so I don't know if it was even implemented. All they said was We’ll continue to change our algorithms over time in order to tackle these challenges. This is more about Google then Stormfront. Seraphim System (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
When Google says that Stormfront got the most hits of any site for Holocaust denial (see the sources I provided), that means it's a Holocaust denial site, no matter what it might have started out to be. Your removal of that description on extremely pedantic grammatical grounds is not appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
The explanation, which is somewhat pedantic, would not have been necessary if you had not restored something that is obviously not correct English in the first place. I had to go look up why it wasn't correct English, but I only had to read it to know that it was not. Not actually English is a non-controversial reasons for removal. Please stop trying to make it controversial, it just isn't.Seraphim System (talk) 06:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you had best go and look up how to express the necessary thought in "correct English", and not indulge in depriving an article of vital information because of a grammatical nicety. You're not the good guy, here, SS, you screwed up, and you should just admit it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I think an editor as experienced as you is capable of fixing his own edits after a discussion, like everyone else does. I have been editing only 1.5 years and do you know how many times I have had a more experienced editor "fix" my edits so they would be included in the article? - I won't say that it has never happened, but it certainly does not happen every time and I certainly don't expect it or think it is something they have to do. Editors were welcoming and they were patient when I was new, but I did have to learn to be responsible for and justify my own edits. Suggesting "improve not delete" is perfectly fine, especially if it is a significant amount of content - but this is two words. You can fix it yourself. The last thing I have to say is - this is an encyclopedia. The sentence was analogous to "Candyland is a believing adventure game". Yes, I removed it, and I if I see anything like that again you can bet that I will remove it.Seraphim System (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
The arguement "this is two words" is completely disingenuous, considering that the two words you removed from the article on pedantic grammatical grounds were a significant description of the ideological slant of the website. It's not as if you removed something trivial. My point is, in case you haven't yet grokked it, that if you had an objection to the grammar, the solution was to fix the grammar not to remove the important content. I've now adjusted the grammar, and you're not happy about it. OK, fine, either fix it or shut up about it, but do not remove the content again or you'll find yourself facing an AN/I report for POV editing. I hope that's clear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Early history

Added information about first bulletin board associated with white nationalism (foundation for Stormfront), Liberty Net. More information about the Liberty Net page and its ties to Stormfront would be very informational for early history section, as Liberty Net does not currently have a page.

Avivaw23 (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Website down

Someone added a (correct) notice that this website is down, but provided no source and included an inappropriate POV comment. So far the issue has not been reported by a third-party, so the "online" assumption has to remain for now. Philip Cross (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

They are Tatarophobic

Does anyone here actually dispute that they are Tatarophobic?--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says that they are? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean? "Tatarophobic" isn't even a word/phobia. Gotitbro (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
WITHDRAWN
I've withdrawn as recommended by experienced editors, question too broad Bacondrum (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

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

I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, but there are other considerations including criminal activity. This site promotes criminal activity and has been linked to murders. Should we be linking to a cite like this that promotes racist violence and has been linked to hate crimes and several murders? Bacondrum (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I reverted your edit to launch a wider debate since this policy would affect all external links pointing to websites involved in illegal or criminal activities, including piracy-related websites. I have no opinion regarding such racist websites which, regardless of their promotion of criminal activities, are probably already illegal in many jurisdictions, notably in Europe due to the various anti-hate speech laws. PS: 4chan has been linked to murders too. Should we remove their url? Alcaios (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I hear you, and it's a legitimate and fair argument. I think these things should be taken on a case by case basis in terms of the seriousness of the crime (I've elaborated on that below), as for 4chan, I'm not really well versed on the place other than knowing it's used by some pretty shady neo-Nazi types, but we certainly should not be linking to any feeds or message boards that advocate or are used to plan serious hate crimes like murder, IMO. Have you launched a wider debate? Would it be better to withdraw this RFC and continue there? Bacondrum (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
The difficulty is defining what a "serious crime" is. Although some acts are almost universally perceived as a crime or a serious crime, for many of them it mainly depends on the jurisdiction. I was thinking about launching a debate on a site-wide level (outside of this specific article), but it may too much and it probably already occurred in the past. Let's focus on your RfC. Alcaios (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I think the horrific nature of what we've seen come out of Stormfront meets the standard of being universally perceived as the most serious of crimes. Bacondrum (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
@Bacondrum: I'm not talking about Stormfront in particular. I only would like to know which policy we should follow regarding urls and criminal activities since it may affect a lot of WP pages which are way less harmful than this neo-Nazi forum. On 2nd thought, I see no issue if we remove the url from the article. I tried to google "stormfront" and "stormfront url", and the only website providing the url on the 1st page of the search results was WP (in France). The Library of Congress also provides it on the 2nd page of Google results. Alcaios (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Comment I think we should look at these sites on a case by case basis, and it's a matter of using common sense and proportion, sure Piratebay is facilitating crime, but the crime they facilitate is copyright infringement, no one is planning and/or discussing serious violent crimes like rape or murder there. I don't think we should link to a site like Stormfront whose sole purpose is the promotion of race hate and violence, neo-Nazism etc. A site that has been connected to the planning of serious and heinous crimes such as racially motivated murder. I'm sure I am not the only editor who sees an issue here, I think it's worth discussing at length. I for one think we should not link to sites that promote violent racism. If you are unfortunate enough to have seen the member only content, it's actually a terrifying site, a lot of guns and gun talk, gifs of men committing mass shootings alongside calls to kill ethnic minorities etc. Users of this site regularly call for ethnic cleansing. Bacondrum (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I have reverted your removal of this link because doing the removal was in direct violation of WP:NOTCENSORED which is a clear policy. If you think the policy needs changing, then this isn't the way to go about it. I also don't see any case for an exception to the policy here - there is no indication that Wikipedia should avoid linking to material related to crimes. For example Mein Kampf is connected to The Holocaust but we link directly to several versions of the text (see also Ted Kaczynski etc). On another level why would we assume our readers would be adversely influenced by following the link, rather than say, informing themselves of just how execrable the site actually is? ----Pontificalibus 07:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
That analogy falls flat, IMO. Mein Kampf is a relic, it is not a website actively being used today to plan the most serious of crimes and recruit members to violent extremism. We don't link to Islamic extremist groups websites, we don't include url's to the websites of active extremist groups in general: Atomwaffen Division, Ku Klux Klan, Ulster Defence Association, or Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, for example. Bacondrum (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I've started a broader discussion on the issue here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proud_Boys#Extremist_and_terrorist_group_websites Bacondrum (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
None of your examples are articles about websites, so of course we can easily avoid providing a URL.----Pontificalibus 06:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that means we need to link to violent extremist websites, reliable sources document their crimes and discuss this site, secondary sources are better for verification anyway. If we wouldn't usually link to extremist sites then I see no reason why we would here, surely the same considerations apply. Bacondrum (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
If reliable sources such as the centre-left Guardian newspaper specify the site's URL in their articles, why wouldn't we? ----Pontificalibus 06:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support removing URLs of hate organizations and sites that promote hate-based violence. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, we should link. It's like a cross between a zoo and a Holocaust museum. I wholly endorse our readers browsing these zoo animals. The link is useful educational material, and per WP:NOTCENSORED we do not delete useful educational material just because someone finds it objectionable. Alsee (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, Link NOTCENSORED and Not 1984. Editors feelings about a topic should have zero bearing on how a topic is reported. After all, some editors may find a particular church whose leader lives by Rome to be offensive, another editor may find a group that hands out cooking and wilderness badges offensive. We aren't here for any editors feelings, only to provide relevant and properly sourced information to readers Slywriter (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
    • That is a ridiculously weak and silly argument. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
      • How Wikipedia deals with groups like Stormfront shapes all editing and precedent going forward. Once an exception is made to exclude one "bad" group's link, it becomes easier for that exception to creep into additional articles through local consensus that escapes larger community review. As for feelings, I do believe Wikipedia should be doing more to discourage editors from editing topics that they have extreme emotional attachment to. Slywriter (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, we should link. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and such a pertinent link fails neither WP:ELNEVER nor WP:ELNO. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - From WP:EXT in particular WP:ELBURDEN

    "This guideline describes the most common reasons for including and excluding links. However, the fact that a given link is not actually prohibited by this guideline does not automatically mean that it must or should be linked. Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article. Disputes about links can be addressed through the normal dispute-resolution process, particularly at the external links noticeboard.

Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them."
WP:NOTCENSORED is not a mandate for inclusion. Bacondrum (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The mandate for inclusion is WP:ELYES and WP:ELOFFICIAL. The policy WP:NOTCENSORED then applies to any attempted removal of the link. All these policies are established by consensus, so if you want things to be done differently or an exception to made here, you're going to have to gain consensus for that before removing the link. ----Pontificalibus 06:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So now this Withdrawn is being used as a False Consensus to leave the web address out of the article. A Link that has been historically part of the page (unlinked). That's wikilawyering at its finest especially when the edit summary falsely states that some consensus exists to leave the link out. Slywriter (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't falsely accuse me of wikilawyering, that's a personal attack. The guideline is clear "Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them" no consensus has ever been achieved to include. Bacondrum (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The link has been historically listed. You have the onus and burden to change that consensus. Not start an RfC, withdraw said RfC, and then leave the article in your preferred state while claiming that a consensus exists to leave the link out. Even a read above doesn't show that their is remotely consensus for the position and the link exclusion is NOT intended to leave the link out when the subject of the article is the link.
In summary, the default position is to INCLUDE a link when it's the subject of an article and that is seen on virtually every page of wikipedia. So burden falls to those seeking to overrule statewide consensus, not those abiding by it. Slywriter (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
That's your opinion and I respectfully disagree. I've seen no sitewide consensus. Bacondrum (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Extremist_groups_and_their_URL's
Looks pretty clear from here. And in fact, you explicitly stated you would start an RFC at the proper place there, and now trying an end run around. Slywriter (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Will you stop with the personal attacks, I'm not trying to get around anything, this is a specific rfc, I've done nothing wrong and my question is reasonable. If you feel the need to attack me again by making false accusations of ill intent we can just go straight to the drama boards, please. There is no need for incivility at all. Bacondrum (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Apologies for the incivility. Bit coarse there but does not change the facts... status quo ante was altered without consensus, an RfC on External Links was advised as the proper forum and the straw poll below is completely inappropriate attempt at using local consensus to override site policy Slywriter (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the apology. I disagree, I see no encyclopedic value in linking the url of a violent extremist group responsible for hundreds of murders and mass shootings, we use editorial discretion all the time, it's a conversation worth having. Bacondrum (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stormfront_(website)/Archive_11&oldid=1153760167"