Talk:Stormfront (website)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

bamboo delight etc

I don't think that claim by ADL is true, at least not any more. ADL claims

"A subtler, though equally virulent anti-Semitism pervades the Bamboo Delight Web site. Hosted by Blac"

It's unclear where the information is derived from. Maybe from IP/whois record, maybe somebody's allegations (it's claimed in the article that mr Black avoided or did not consider necessary to claim credit himself).

"Beyond his additions to Stormfront, Black has begun to help other white supremacists by hosting their sites without publicly admitting that he is doing so. Unlike sites such as The Truth at Last or White Nationalist News Agency, which are housed by Black and are in effect part of Stormfront, it is not readily apparent that he services these other sites."

At least as it is now, sites which DB is actually (provably) hosting have common IP range and similar whois record:

• stormfront.org:
  • IP Address: 70.85.161.7
  • IP Location: United States - Texas - Dallas - Theplanet.com Internet Services Inc
• martinlutherking.org
  • IP Address: 70.86.202.126
  • IP Location: United States - Texas - Dallas - Theplanet.com Internet Services Inc
• solargeneral.com
  • IP Address: 70.86.202.116
  • IP Location: United States - Texas - Dallas - Theplanet.com Internet Services Inc

And there's Don Black and Stormfront and Florida address in whois details

bamboo delight is totally different:

• IP Address: 216.169.145.200
• IP Location: United States - Maryland - Easton - Internet Connection

and in details

 Registrant:
 Bamboo Delight Company
 PO BOX 2792
 Saratoga, CA 95070-0792
 US

 Domain Name: BAMBOO-DELIGHT.COM

 Administrative Contact:
  Bamboo Delight Company
  Delaney, Gregory
  PO BOX 2792
  Saratoga, CA 95070-0792
  US
  408-236-2128
  http://www.emailaddressprotection.com [email]

 Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
  Bamboo Delight Company
  Delaney, Gregory
  PO BOX 2792
  Saratoga, CA 95070-0792
  US
  (408) 236-2128
  http://www.emailaddressprotection.com [email]

so it appears to me that ADL as often doesn't know what it's talking about. Or maybe things have changed a lot since then. It's difficult to tell as they don't provide the rationale for attributing the site to Don Black. I'll remove bamboodelight passage as non-factual at the current moment (or at all).--Poison sf 22:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. Very well, I suppose it will have to be this way unless ADL provides some proof. In the meantime, I have created a separate page for Bamboo Delight, noting the attribution dispute. --SohanDsouza 05:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Missing controversies

Looks like the entire controversies section was pulled out by an anonymous editor. I don't see discussion of this here. I'm putting the entire thing back in for now. Friday (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent reversion

To poison sf - By reverting, you have deleted material that is supported by citations, and have reintroduced uncited material and non-NPOV statements. You did not post a message concerning your reasonong on this discussion, nor have you posted a message to my talk. Please self revert. If you feel strongly that I have made any errors, please address them and provide your reasoning as I have done. Thank you, Stick to the Facts 19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

He restored the cited information. You also removed pertinent, factual information in your previous edits.

--Ryodox 20:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The only things I removed were unreferenced, non-NPOV, or provided fallacious reasoning (post hoc ergo propter hoc); ie an implication that one thing was cause by another because it came after another. For example, when AOL blocked stormfront because AOL members reported that it was a phishing scam, and then AOL changed the screen to a general error after Don Black threatened action. The threat did not necessarily cause the change - it could have resulted from AOL looking into the matter, determining there was no phishing, and changing the screen. There is no support for a connection - if there is, please provide a reference.

Who knows why they removed. The reasons you cite are adequate ground for rewording and clarification, but not for removal of notable facts Poison sf 20:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC).

Exactly - who knows why they removed. That's why I deleted your conclusory statement. Since we are in agreement that the conclusion is unsupported, it will be removed. Stick to the Facts 20:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No I don't think we're in agreement. If you're talking about the "lawsuit" passage, note, that the original wording, AFAIK, was "after", NOT "because". So it wasn't giving any incorrect information. If your complaint is that it CAN possibly be understood wrongly (i.e. somebody can be mesled into thinking there's a proven causal link), then it may allow rewording, but NOT removal of notable facts, what you've done in one of revisions (I haven't yet checked the last one). Poison sf 20:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No we are not in agreement, at least we agree on that. Saying X happened after Y is ambiguous and implies a causal connection. A better way to phrase it is Y happened. Later, X happened. This means that Y preceeded X, and can mean either that Y did or did not cause X. Since we don't know whether Y caused X, my way is unambiguous and not misleading. Saying that X happened after Y directly imlies that the earlier caused the later, or at best it is extremely sloppy writing. If I say 'the Titanic sank after I threw a rock at it', that means something very different from 'I threw a rock at the Titanic. Later, it sank.' I've never seen a history book that started at the present and worked its way backwards, have you?Stick to the Facts 21:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's ok to rephrase if the construction with the word "after" is objectionable. You, however, removed information without attempting to rephrase it, that's the problemPoison sf 18:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I also clarified misleading information - ie the number of 'members' was given, but the reference cited indicated the number of registered user accounts. To call them 'members' is misleading and inaccurate because there can be many accounts registered to one person, and many non-members register in order to post on the site. There is no logic basis for concluding that 'registered user accounts' = members, so it was deleted. Stick to the Facts 20:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Registered user accounts - restored as more or less sensible. No objection to that one. Some other info was restored as well. Poison sf 20:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - however, the changes you made by reverting were far too extensive for me to change back manually. You also have not restored material supported by cited references. I welcome you to reintroduce your edits, with supporting arguments or citations, after I restore. Every edit I make will have supporting arguments and/or references. I appreciating you doing the same. Thank you, Stick to the Facts 20:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Some material wasn't adequately supported. I restored only what is undebatable and actually proved by links Poison sf 20:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of the info I included without cites was supported by other cites I made. I will amend later to independently cite each fact that is so supported. Stick to the Facts 21:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Followup - while poison sf changed some of my facts and references back after his revert, he did not restore others and has also restored unreferenced material and non-NPOV statements. I understand that he has also provided additional referenced material of his own. Unfortunately, his initial reversion caused changes far too extensive for me to restore manually - therefore, I am compelled to revert to my last edit. If poison sf wished, he can change his edits back without reverting. Also, please provide arguments supporting your changes. Thank you. Stick to the Facts 20:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Some comments I have on other issues:

Stormfront is neither revisionist nor "anti-semitic" board. The sensible criteria is: having revisionist or anti-semitic beliefs (often shared by non-caucasians) is not enough for being accepted as full-privileged member with access to the whole of the board. Only a white nationalist will be admitted. That's the only common ground. Take revisionism, for example. There're many posts on the board about it and it's a pretty popular belief, but it's not a consensus of all members of the board. Not everybody agrees with it or even has any interest in it at all. So, in my opinion, this is unsuitable in the lead sentence, where only the most precise description must be given. It's ok and fair enough to mention these beliefs in appropriate section (such information is given in the Members section).

I cited facts that suggest otherwise. I didn't say that the views were those of the owner of SF. I said they are thread topics - they are. Nothing do dispute there, it stays. Who is a member? Every registered user with privileges? My statements stand. Is there some other criteria? Cite it. I in no way implied that those views are shared by everyone - don't color it that way, and don't suggest that I did, please. Stick to the Facts 21:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point here. Those descriptions are not suitable, because they're misleading. It would be similar, if an anti-racist forums that has Marxists or greens would be called "Marxist forum" or "green forum". The three descriptors that were present in the lead sentence precisely described the main theme of the board and the common ground between its members. If, for example, Holocaust revisionism is added there, then why, for example, not add there also "Christian, pro-gun, pro-family, anti-gay, ..." (long list follows). Because all these opinions and sentiments are represented on the board. What exactly elevates "revisionism" above, for example, Christianity? It's all secondary belief systems, that are popular, but not uniformly accepted by the members. Such are mentioned in a proper place - Members section (both anti-semitism and holocaust revisionism are mentioned). You're introducing unnecessary repetition into article and blur the definition, by mixing primary beliefs of the board that are a matter of consensus of all members with peripheral and secondary beliefs like Holocaust revisionism. Poison sf 18:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The descriptions are not misleading. I did not say that they were views shared by the majority, I said they are a selection of thread topics. It is not the same as pointing to a pro-satan worship thread on a church of god website where the poster was lit up by the majority of others. If a post draws a lot of fire from the usual suspects, it would indeed be unfair and misleading to list it in the context in which I listed Holocaust revisionism etc. However, if a thread has overwheling support for the original post, and very little or no dissent, then it is completely reasonable to list it because the view is clearly not universally opposed - even though it might not be shared by the majority. And remember that I never hinted or suggested that they were shared by the majority. If anything, they further demonstrate just how fractured your 'movement' is - I think you've just given me a great idea for a new paragraph. Thanks, Stick to the Facts 20:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore - you are more than welcome to post the names of other thread topics on such issues as religion, family values, etc. That would be fine with me. However, if it turns out that there is either fractured opinion on the matter, or if you cite a thread that starts out 'Let's all come together as one in peace and harmony" and then 100 people flame it, then I will change my language to specify how much flak each thread drew from the others. The Holocaust revisionist thread drew little or no flak and that will be so represented - for something that is divisive like religion, I'll note that too. In short - no matter how to try to weasel a misleading statement, I'll be there to clarify it. If you can't stick to objective facts, then what are you trying to hide, and why? Stick to the Facts 20:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. It's not that Holocaust revisionism is not popular on the board. It's that it's wrong to add descriptions in the lead sentence that are superflous and obfuscate the definition. Holocaust revisionism is a peripheral belief, discussed by a subgroup of members, in particular in a special subforum ("Revisionism"). It's wrong to say that Stormfront is a "revisionist" forum, because it's not its main theme (rather one among many secondary ones). This, in particular, means that revisionism alone doesn't qualify one to post outside of open / opponent sections. On the other hand, white nationalists (for whom this forum exist) can discuss Holocaust revisionism, if they desire so (as well as many other such auxillary topics). Calling Stormfront "revisionist" forum is not more suitable than calling it a "homemaking" or "dating" forum on the basis that there're such sections and threads within it. I find this insinuations about "trying to hide" something ridiculous, as the facts about Holocaust revisionism and anti-semitism being prominent beliefs among members are present in the members section (where various beliefs and principles members adhere to are explained in detail).

So, "hiding something" is little more than your fantasies. What I'm doing is trying to keep the main definition clear and concise, not obfuscated by some references to beliefs that are auxilary to the main belief system of the forum and are picked from a large set of such auxilary beliefs on some unknown criteria. Poison sf 20:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"Violent overthrow" - where is it? There's a link to "Civil war" thread which, per se, is not necessarily about any kind of "violent overthrow of US government". At least not necessarily done by white nationalist, or even any other force within the US. It can be started by some militant group like Atzlanists or by rioting Blacks and by many other hypothetical circumstances.

I will clear up that language to make it more accurate/objective, or will look for another cite. Stick to the Facts 21:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Ethnic cleansing" - the thread itself is not incitement to performing ethnic cleansing or anything like that any more than posting a link to a book about war or terrorists is incitement of war or terrorism. In fact, white people also can be victims of ethnic cleansing, so this may be as well a warning of what possibly may happen and what to expect in such case. It's certainly not illegal as insinuated by wording such as "Although promotion of illegality is ostensibly banned". Calls for ethnic cleansing and encouragement of it is illegal. Posting information about how ethnic cleansing usually happen is not illegal.

The guidelines for posting says do not "advocate or suggest any illegal activity." This is much broader than saying "Do not make any illegal posts." The posts themselves are not illegal and I never suggested that they were, nor would I cite to them if they were - I would just call the FBI. I stated what the policy is, and then gave references that suggest that the prohibition is not enforced. Nothing more. I cannot believe that you can say (type?) with a staight face that that ethnic cleansing post does not "advocate or suggest" illegal activity. If the posts are there because they slipped by the moderators - you know about em now. When the thread disappears, my statement disappears. Regards, Stick to the Facts 20:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've always understood that rule as applying to something more or less resembling open and clear solicitation to perform some illegal acts, with the purpose of shielding the board from being raided and members from being setup by agent provocateurs (and the case of Matt Hale shows that it doesn't take much to get jailed for decades). And not in some sort of hypothetical reality like "Civil War 2", but something much less abstract and fictional, like calling to perform ethnic cleansing here and now or actually starting that civil war by overthrowing the government. This stuff is very blurry. For example, how would one interpret posting a link to a book called "The Turner Diaries"? Commenting on it, stating that one linkes what is written there? Banning that would be over the top, but it's pretty difficult to draw the line between this and ethnic cleansing manual, which can be seen as a more practical guide-like version of The Turner Diaries. Apparently, moderators thought that this one doesn't pass the threshhold, as I see that a moderator commented on it at the end and closed the thread, but didn't remove it. I'm in favour of staying on the safe side whenever possible, so if I've time I'll make an inquiry about this case, whether it's fully legal and possible re-examination of it. Poison sf 17:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm quoting the language directly from the posting guidelines. If your members understand the prohibition to mean something different, then the language is misleading and should be changed to reflect the REAL guidelines. Again, I have never said that the posts themselves are illegal - although they might be. For all I know, some poster/s may be on parole and one of their conditions may be to refrain from activity that would include such posts. I have no idea and it is not for me to speculate. However - take a closer look at the quotes I gave elsewhere directly from posters in the thread. Can you tell me that none of those posts 'advocates or suggests' illegal activity? Look again - "The ultimate payback to Mexico for all those wetbacks!" "A lot of the things that were discussed here in detail, like raiding military supply depots, I'd never thought of and their guide on how to do so could prove invaluable." "For once, someone has come up with a legimate plan we can reach, for once." "The Balkan wars have set the standard for cleaning out ethnic troublemakers. I'd like to hear some suggestions about adapting Balkan tactics to the USA too." I can cite others but I think you get the point. If you want this taken out, you will have to either explain to me exactly how each and every one of these statements neither 'advocates' nor 'suggests' illegal activity. Or, the thread has to come off the SF website. Even if you do, I'll just come back with another thread like it, and the gist of the sentence will be there until every last thread is scrapped from the SF website. Of course, you can also change the text of the posting guidelines. Regards, Stick to the Facts 18:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It is something more than a link to a book. It contains many replies supporting ethic cleansing. Look at the cite. I did not in any way suggest these views were shared by the majority or managers of SF. Also - I didn't not distinguish between white and other ethnic cleansing, do you want me to say that it was pro-non-white ethic cleansing? I would be happy to. Something is not banned just because you say it is. If you say it is banned, but it is there, it is not truly banned at all. Banning something and then not enforcing that ban is no ban at all. No one will be fooled otherwise. However, I did in fact note that it is claimed to be banned. Stick to the Facts 21:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Moderators, like on most internet webforums, are volunteers who largerly depend on user reports to remove problematic content. Something may simply pass under the radar. This particular case is controversial. The ethnic cleansing discussion is edgy, but posting a link to a book does not contitute illegality. Even favourably commenting on such book or actions described in it in a vague fashion is not necessarily illegal (though, it may be repelling for many people). For example, saying "I wouldn't mind ethnic cleansing to happen" is not agitating others to perform illegal acts, while something clear and unveiled such as "go outside and kill them" is. That's what I mean. Poison sf 18:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't think "The ultimate payback to Mexico for all those wetbacks!" falls under "advocate or suggest?" Stick to the Facts 20:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Other additions near these seemed ok.

Removal of "disgrunted White nationalist" description is not suitable. The sentence which was in place was specifically about White nationalist members (non WN members are also mentioned before it). If you don't like that it's unsourced, the whole paragraph must then be removed. The paragraph itself is somewhat of a compromise between various groups of editors. I'm not even that convinced myself that bitching of various groups of online users is information notable enough. But in the past this paragraph stayed as more or less NPOV and compromise summary of this stuff. I'll try to find some sources, but it's difficult and, I think, this passage never had any. Neither, if I'm not missing something, did your revision. Same goes for other changes in that paragraph.

I guess that's all for now. Poison sf 20:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A revision that deletes non-NPOV statements does not need a cite. A revision that deletes unsuported information does not need a cite. Revisions that change cited information DO need a cite where that revision pertains directly to the cited information. No cited reference is required, however, if the revision of the cited info pertains to a mischaracterization of the cited reference, or if the cited reference is an invalid reference, or invalid conclusions drawn from the info.

The sentence is much more objective without the term 'disgruntled.' You don't know what their specific state of mind was, whether it was mild annoyance or raging fury. Having seen your website, however, I am inclined to agree that it was probably closer to the latter. Of course, you don't even give a cite indicating that there has been any such censorship - I have let that slide. I am willing to concede small details like that if you are willing to comprimise in other regards. Here's what I have in mind. I revert and address the things you've pointed out. That makes more work for you because you've made other substantive changes since then - but you started this, not me. And you're one revert ahead of me. Once I've made my changes, you can go through and make your own - if you delete any one of my references, or anything that is supported by one of those references, then unless you provide a better reference, it will be put back. If you plan on doing otherwise, save yourself the trouble. If you change anything else, make sure that you provide cites, arguments, and explanations where appropriate. That's what I have done. If you can't do that much, it gets changed back. And by the way, we only get three reverts a day - and when those are used up, keep in mind that I can type very, very very fast.

As for some things being a compromise between various editors - I have addressed this elsewhere. I am not bound by anyone elses pacts or treaties. Every change I make will be supported by cited references, valid arguments, and explanations. If I fail to do that, let me know and if you are persuasive I WILL change them back. On the other hand, some of your 'arguments' and 'facts' are clearly meant to distort the truth, and I cannot believe that it is entirely unintentional. If I absolutely have to, I will make in depth, detailed arguments to make my point and I'll explain them on a level a 3rd grader could understand. Regards, Stick to the Facts 01:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL talk about hair-splitting. Well, if a person complains about censorship, what is his state of mind? Put "annoyed" there is that's really THAT important or changes anything. OK, if there's such a demand for references, I think this paragraph should go in entirety, because it has no sources. Then, if sources are found, all or part of it may be restored. As for the compromise, that whole paragraph was hanging on that compromise so far, because there was nothing more tangible (such as sources). Since you're not ok with it, I've deleted it for now as unsourced as a whole. Poison sf 18:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I will reexamine the sentence "Although promotion of illegality is ostensibly banned, the site contains numerous threads devoted to such topics as ethnic cleansing [1] and Civil War II military tactics [2] in spite of moderation of the forums." I'll reexamine the references I cited. Please be patient - if the sentence is overblown or the references do not in fact suggest the promotion of illegal activity I will amend, but I appreciate you giving me the chance to make a determination before you weigh in again. Regards, Stick to the Facts 17:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Followup - the comment about the promotion of illegality as supported by the thread on ethic cleansing stays. The book the thread is based on and the comments supporting it CLEARLY address perpetrating ethnic cleansing and not defending against it. See for example these reader comments: "The ultimate payback to Mexico for all those wetbacks!" "A lot of the things that were discussed here in detail, like raiding military supply depots, I'd never thought of and their guide on how to do so could prove invaluable." "For once, someone has come up with a legimate plan we can reach, for once." "The Balkan wars have set the standard for cleaning out ethnic troublemakers. I'd like to hear some suggestions about adapting Balkan tactics to the USA too." "Remember that some nations will see this as a terrorist manual, and with certin laws, one could be arrested for simply owning it. Be careful when printing it."

Shall I go on? There are 43 posts in this thread.

Here is a direct quote from the book itself: "The purpose of this manual is to politically focus European Americans and to pass along time proven methods of ridding their cities of predatory Blacks and their White defenders." To suggest that this thread is not about perpetrating ethic cleansing is absolutely preposterous. Don't bother finding something addressing defending against ethic cleansing - that will not defeat my argument that the thread is also pro-ethic cleansing because my conclusion is still valid even if both are present. This would be true even if the thread were split 50:50 (and it is not) or even if most of the thread addressed defending against it (and it does not.) As it is, all or nearly all are pro-ethnic cleansing. Stick to the Facts 17:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the Civil War II thread - I can cull quotes from that thread as well that address striking first. Please also note that I have not included the Holocaust denial, prominent displays of swastikas, and other Nazi images. All of these things are illegal in many countries and therefore qualify. Stormfront and Wikipedia are both available internationally except where banned. I haven't included them yet, would you like me to? If I want I can find numerous other threads to cite and I'd be happy to put them all up if you like. Regards, Stick to the Facts 17:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, do show quotes or something. I don't think the vague things like "striking first" count though. Tough talking, but I don't think that anybody in US would be prosecuted for saying something like "we must strike first if there's Civil War 2" even if the identity of such poster would be exposed.

Your identity is always just 2 subpoenas away (actually only one since your ISP will give you up without one.) I'll show the quotes. As for whether anyone would be prosecuted, who knows. Let me know what happens. Regards, Stick to the Facts 19:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"All of these things are illegal in many countries and therefore qualify" - no they don't qualify. A lot of things may be illegal *somewhere*, the ban on illegal content is of course only basing on US laws. Though, if you really want this clarification, it can be inserted, that ban on illegality is based on US laws alone and some speech that is constitutionally protected speech under US jurisdiction is illegal in some other countries, for example, Germany. This information may be notable enough to place it in the article

"If I want I can find numerous other threads to cite" - why not. Let's see what do you have. I think it's going to be a tough task to find content obviously illegal under US laws because most of it is removed, for self-preservation alone if nothing else (even constitutionally protected speech in US has its limits, and obviously illegal content may lead to law enforcement raids and forum closure). Poison sf 19:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Tell it to the judge.

Since you asked so politely, I will find some more threads and cite them.

As for your argument "...most of it is removed, for self-preservation alone if nothing else (even constitutionally protected speech in US has its limits, and obviously illegal content may lead to law enforcement raids and forum closure)." This is like telling the DEA agent "well of course I didn't know there were 10 kilos of cocaine in my trunk - I mean, that would be illegal and I'd go to jail - no one wants to go to jail, therefore I could not have known it was there." If Tony Soprano says "Hey Paulie, Christopher, Silvo - you are stricly forbidden to kill anyone!" And they keep killing people, it suggests that the 'ban' is nothing more than a CYA statement and a sham. Not gonna fly. As for MOST of it being removed, that suggests that ALL of it is NOT removed - my statement is accurate. If you really don't like it, remove all of the posts and threads from your website. Even though they are cached in google for all eternity, I would be willing to consider pulling any statement here on wiki if the threads and/or posts are removed from the SF website. If they stay on the SF website, PARTICULARLY after I have pointed them out to you, my statement will stand. You have no excuse to leave them up now that I have given you actual notice. Regards, Stick to the Facts 19:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You will have to provide something more substantial though, something actually prosecutable under US law. The "Civil war 2" and "Ethnic cleansing" can be said to be edgy, yes, militant, perhaps, but not demonstrably illegal. Not in US, at least. Unless you can find some direct, open calls for overthrow of US government, this rules the "civil war 2" thread out. It's discussion of hypothetical circumstances and scenarios. "Ethnic cleansing" is even more edgy and some posters, admittedly, are not showing themselves in a great light in there, but still I fail to see any clearly law-breaking statements in there. It looks like few posters wouldn't mind for ethnical cleansing to take place. Though it's never more than a discussion of hypothetical events and circumstances (such as new "civil war") without direct and suggestion to perform such acts, i.e. something like "we're planning to ethnically cleanse a nearby district soon, who is joining?". Therefore I disagree with formulations of such kind as "in spite of moderation guidelines" etc. The closest thing I see is "The Balkan wars have set the standard for cleaning out ethnic troublemakers", but this, in my opinion, still falls short of clearly and unquestionable suggesting to perform any illegal acts.

Ethnic cleansing is, believe it or not, against the law, and it was 'advocated or suggested' in that thread. And as a matter of fact, in the unlikely event that civil war II did indeed break out, even if you had nothing to do with starting it, if you are a civilian and not in the military, it would indeed be illegal (first degree murder, actually) to kill anyone under any circumstance other than self defense - and it is only self defense if you are in IMMINENT danger - and only if the response is only enough to defend yourslef and no more. In other words, going commando and attacking the 'enemy' if you are a civilian is indeed murder - and if captured you would be tried as a murderer and not given the protections accorded to a POW. In short, yes indeed, the thread 'advocates or suggests' illegal activity.

One of the few things that the posters ARE clearly suggesting to do in that thread about ethnic cleansing is reading the book. Reading the book is not an illegal act.

I agree that it is not and I never suggested that it was. The prohibition is against 'advocating or suggesting illegal activity', not 'don't make illegal posts.' Stick to the Facts 21:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This may be compared to the speech of certain Atzlan ideologues in USA. Some of them, including, if I remember correctly, certain academic(s) stated that creation of a state called Atzlan on the southern US soil is "an inevitability". Others proposed that Europeans will be forced to leave the place. Although some may see this as extremist and militant, laws in US protect such speech. This is not much different from what is being said in those Stormfront threads. I think that all this and pretty much everything except some obvious and clear calls to perform well-defined criminal activity is protected as free speech and that's why Stormfront moderators don't deem it necessary to delete those threads.

That has nothing to do with SF. If you don't like it address it in their wiki entry. It is no defense to say 'he does it so I can do it.' And again, I never said that the contents of the threads themselves were illegal (although they could be for all I know.) I merely suggest that they contradict the stated posting policy. Stick to the Facts 20:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose changing this to

(new sentence) The site contains numerous threads devoted to such topics as discussion of hypothetical Civil War scenarios and ethnic cleansing (references). Such topics, as well as discussion of Holocaust may be illegal under many jurisdictions outside of US, but are permitted by the forum rules.

I can't go along with this. An orthodox jewish website can have threads about ethic cleansing - but this would be in an entirely different context. The thread clearly demonstrates far more pro-ethnic cleansing opinions than opposing and it is perfectly reasonable to point that out. Also, the scenarios are Civil War *II* scenarios. While 'Civil War II' might be a 'civil war', it is not THE "Civil War". When used in caps that suggests the american civil war of the 19th century. As a side note, why do you feel the need to try to be so sneaky and deceptive in your language? If you can't get your message out with blunt and impartial truth, what does that tell you? You are never going sneak anything by me. Stick to the Facts 21:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What the text I'm disagreeing with was suggesting is that Stormfront's rules are being violated by these posts. But, being "pro Civil War" is not violating it. The rules state "don't advocate / suggest illegal activity". Abstract things like "being pro pro-civil war" in my opinion is not prohibited by such rules. A person must actually suggest starting it or overthrowing the government or something like that, not express that he wouldn't mind for that to happen in an ambigous way. Though, I'm tired of this hair splitting and I think I know how to address this in a neutral way complying to Wikipedia policies. I may go as "Critics argue that the policies are broken by discussion about ...". Well, in an ideal case, there would be a link to somebody or something notable stating such opinion, because there is not supposed to be original research. But, since the subject of the article is a webforum and an element of online culture, I guess your own comments will be enough to say that.

Actually, do you realize that discussing ANY strategies or plans about a proposed illegal activity, even if very preliminary, can be an intent to commit that crime? I submit that any thread that discusses strategies and/or methods of carrying out ethnic cleansing or 'civil war II' are IN THEMSELVES illeal. Ethnic cleansing is not only illegal - it is just about the most heinously illegal thing anyone can conceive of. Also, while engaging in combat as a member of the military is not illegal (assuming that the conflict is legal in the first place) - it IS illegal if you are a civilian - unless you are acting in self defense. Self defense does not mean attacking the enemy if you aren't in imminent danger. Planning or discussing strategy about such a thing could also be an intent crime. (DISCLAIMER - This is in no way to be construed as legal advice, it is included only as a purely academic exercise - it should be construed as speculation only - no consideration has been received nor offered - it is not to be relied upon PERIOD. The author explicitly notes that he in no way holds himself out to be knowledged or experienced in this area of the law - this disclaimer applies to all statements containing any law related information by the author)

I don't know what's all that stuff about civil war II. I do perfectly realize that what it indirectly refers to american civil war. That's why in my proposed version of this passage I used a link to a wikipedia article about American Civil War (see yourself my proposed version above).

The book is specifically about a 'civil war ii' - i think that is even the title but im not sure. Calling it "Civil War" is not only misleading, it is an outright lie. Civil War in caps is a proper noun and refers to the American Civil War of the 19th century, at least in US English usage. Stick to the Facts 21:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "sneaky" or "non-sneaky" I suggest you leave your personal opinions about me to yourself. I'm not very interested in them and I'm only trying to approach all claims with intense scrutiny, which can only benefit the article. Poison sf 16:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Intense scrutiny? If you say so. Unbiased scrutiny? Absolutely not. I merely note that if you are trying to twist words around to get people to think they mean something other than what you think they REALLY mean, it is misleading. A true but misleading statement or omission is every bit as bad as a false statement as an element of, for example, fraud - did you know that? (Again this is in no way legal advice - don't rely on it - see disclaimer above) Stick to the Facts 21:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This avoids the speculation about the above mentioned examples breaking the forum policies, which, in my opinion, wasn't demonstrated in a clear and unambigous way. Poison sf 20:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Addresing some of your points in detailed fashion:

• "The ultimate payback to Mexico for all those wetbacks!". This is not directly suggesting any activity.

I really cannot believe that you can deny that the ethic cleansing of Mexico would not be illegal. How is this different from someone saying 'this is how to go about ethic cleansing' and then someone saying 'that would be a great way to get back at mexico!' It is completely unreasonable to say that that isn't suggesting illegal activity, I'm

sorry.

If you see this statement as advocating ethnic cleansing of Mexico, I simply disagree. In fact I have no idea what it actually means. I've several theories. Maybe he sees as ethnic cleansing of mexicans in America as "payback". Or who knows, somebody may see just an act of writing such book a "payback". At least I see that as no less likely than your theory that it suggest ethnic cleansing of Mexico. I absolutely don't see it that way. I think you need to stop playing the medium and pretend that your idea of what an ambigous statement means is the true one. Poison sf 20:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're watching some true crime TV show and they talk about a guy who planned an elaborate scheme to get away with killing his wife, and then you turned to your friend and said "hey I think we could pull that off against Joe down the street!" Are you seriously telling me that isn't suggesting illegal activity? What is the difference? I am suggesting that the statement itself COULD be illegal for all I know. It is definitely suggesting illegal activity. Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• "A lot of the things that were discussed here in detail, like raiding military supply depots, I'd never thought of and their guide on how to do so could prove invaluable." This is not unambigously suggesting any activity either.

"...their guide on how to do so could prove invaluable." Invaluable for what? The guide could be invaluable as a door stop or paperweight? You don't really think a judge would ever say "well he mentioned raiding military supply depots and then finished the sentence with ""...their guide on how to do so could prove invaluable", but he could have meant invaluable for use as a paperweight. I guess he's got us this time - the defendant is free to go." You sir are naive. (No legal advice see disclaimer above.) Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"...their guide on how to do so could prove invaluable." I argue that the sentence above is an intent crime IN ITELF - even preliminary plans or discussions can be an intent to commit the underlying offense. It stays. The activity itself is highly illegal and it is 'advocated or suggested.' (see disclaimer - not legal advice - dont rely on this info)

I don't see anybody in clear language suggesting any activity. Poison sf 20:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to say "I am suggesting we do X" to be suggesting X. No moreso than you have to say "by the way this transaction is fraudulent" to be convicted of fraud. Whether something is suggested or implied or fradulent is determined from the language and implications and CONDUCT and the context. (THis isn't legal advice I don't know what I'm talking about see disclaimer if you want legal advice go consult an attorney.) Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• "For once, someone has come up with a legimate plan we can reach, for once." Perhaps this person sees it as a legitimate plan that he thinks we can reach. Since he's not even directly appealing to members to carry out such plan he's just stating personal opinion.

"A plan we can reach?" Sure, it's an opinion. But guess what? Something can be one thing and also be another thing at the same time. An orange can be a fruit AND a round orange object. I cat can be BOTH an animal and a mousecatcher. "A plan we can reach" can be BOTH an opinion and a suggestion. "Hey Joe! I have here a plan on how to shoplift a sixpack from the convenience store,I think this is a plan we can reach!" See? An opinion and a suggestion all rolled into one. It never ceases to amaze me how people manage to convince themselves they'll be able to outsmart the court with these kind of arguments. (Not that I know anything about the law - don't listen to me - see disclaimer - if you need advice see a lawyer) Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• "The Balkan wars have set the standard for cleaning out ethnic troublemakers. I'd like to hear some suggestions about adapting Balkan tactics to the USA too." Since he's not clearly suggesting applying those tactics he's technically not advocating anything than somebody "making suggestions about adapting Balkan tactics". Making such suggestions AFAIK is not illegal.

Sorry, you aren't getting any traction by saying this isn't suggesting illegal activity - "I'd like to hear some suggestions about adapting Balkan tactics to the USA too." How can you possibly say this isn't suggesting illegal activity? "Hey Joe, Dave really sets the standard for robbing banks. I'd like to hear some suggestions about adapting his ideas to the First National Bank of Hooterville on Main Street." I mean, get real. Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Perhaps this person sees it as a legitimate plan that he thinks we can reach. " You said it yourself. Saying 'hey guys we can do this!' isn't advocating or suggesting? Please.

He's not detailing on what the plan is. Context suggests it's probably something described in the book in whole or in part... done somewhere... somewhen. Perhaps, when US and US law don't exist anymore.

You're really reaching now. Don't bring fanciful hypotheticals into this unless you can back it up with a reference in the book. You can't say "Hey Tom let's go kill Jim tonight" and then argue "oh no your honor, I meant in the hypothetical situation where Jim was an undead zombie - so technically he couldn't really be killed. I just meant it like "lets go destroy his animated corpse and rid the world of the abomination."" Gimme a break. Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps in some place out of US (there're people who advocate creating "White homeland" in some weird places).Poison sf 20:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The book has maps of the US. Again, you won't get away with bizzare and unfounded hypotheticals. Don't say "maybe he meant this really weird thing" unless you can point to some reason to think that. If you are caught by the police standing alone in a field with a bloody knife in one hand and a severed head in another, and you had been seen tying that person up and putting them in your trunk 30 mins earlier, do you really think you are going to win with the argument "you can't prove I did it because it could have been flying invisible frog aliens." You won't. (Not that I am giving legal advice here cause I'm not - see disclaimer - if you want legal advice go see a lawyer.) Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"I'd like to hear some suggestions about adapting Balkan tactics to the USA too." That can be an element of an intent crime and the statement itself can be illegal (not legal advice, don't have reliance on this statement, see disclaimer above)

Hmm. Not having on the board something that is an "element of an intent of crime" is somewhat different that what the guideline deals with. Even something innocent sounding per se may be element of intent of crime in context of other proof in the court of law. This is, however, entirely different matter. Poison sf 20:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oooo I like your answer. I completely give in here - the board does not specifically prohibit posts that are illegal IN THEMSELVES, it only prohibits advocating or suggesting. You got me. Tell you what - I'll amend the sentence and take out the part about how it violates the guidelines and I'll point out that it is possibly illegal in itelf. Do you accept that compromise? No? Awwwww shucks.  :(

Actually, I lied - I don't give in here - it IS suggesting or advocating - for the same reasons I gave above. Of course, I could still add the illegal part if you want. If you really want, we can take this bone of contention up with the moderators for a dispute resolution. Who do you think they will side with? Want to find out? Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It all depends on how conservatively or liberally you interpret the guidelines. I interpret them the way that only something that most definitely, in clear language, unambigously suggests such activity breaks the guideline. You're interpreting it in an ultra-broad fashion so that even the remark about Mexico is somehow suggesting some activity. Admittedly, a guideline is very short and thus can have many interpretations, but I don't know any reason why yours should have an upper hand. I'm ok with including your opinion in a neutral way though.

It doesn't matter how YOU interpret them - if you interpret them as something other than their literal meaning, then state explicitly WHAT you take them to mean in the wiki article. Even so that would only be your opinion and not the consensus. Words must be taken at their literal meaning if no evidence exists to suggest that they are meant to mean something else. If there is that evidence, put it in the article (with a cite.) Stick to the Facts 21:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You've also, for some reason, moved some information into the lead paragraph, listing some sections selected using unknown criteria. If you don't know, that section is supposed to include only absolutely essential things. Now it's, in my opinion, unacceptably bloated. I'll create a special section for legality issues and for the list of forum subsections, such as Strategy and Tactics and Self defence - is it even needed? What for?

The website is practically 90% forums and 10% articles (I'm being generous.) I think a description of some of the forums is entirely relevant - moreso than some of the other info in the lead-in. I de-bloated it by moving some member info to the members section. As for moving the legality info - I cannot accept you overemphasizing the CYA statement you call 'posting guidelines.' They are clearly not enforced, at least not all the time. I gave you actual notice of threads that violate the policy - they are still there. You can't pretend that they 'slipped past' the moderators now - you can delete them at any time and you haven't.

You gave notice of threads that in YOUR OPINION violate policies. I personally can't delete anything, because I'm not a moderator. I can go lengths to try and convince them to remove something (success far from guaranteed), but so far I've been occupied more more important priorities. I doubt they're even as of now aware of/care about these disputes.

The entry no longer says that they violate policies. I changed that before. I merely list some, and then state the policy. As for this - "I personally can't delete anything, because I'm not a moderator." I know who you are to within 3 people, and it is possible you aren't a moderator - in fact the person who I think you are most likely to be isn't a moderator. But that is completely irrelevant. Whether they have notice of the content is also irrelevant. The posts are there. My statements are accurate. I don't say they violate the guidelines, I merely identify some threads. I gave cited references for the threads I cited. There is no further reason for this discussion. Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's your personal opinion that they are clearly not enforced. You aren't even any kind of notable expert on this, and some of your judgements seem pretty shoddy to me (for example in that Mexico case). I think it's already pretty generous to basically cite you via "Critics argue". Actually, personal research is not even supposed to be here, but, since it's a webforum, I'm willing to accept your claims (on this website) as worthy of mention in the article.

I don't say they aren't enforced any longer. See above. Point is now moot. Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that I'm fully objective on this issue, that would probably be impossible. However, there're policies on Wikipedia that help deal with such issues and avoiding introducing personal opinions, such as citing respectable sources and third party opinions in a neutral way. There's little to cite here beyond personal opinions, but at least that can be done in a neutral way instead of pretending that personal opinion is a fact. I don't know what I have "overemphasized", I basically just moved the information into another section and rephrased your own words in a neutral way. If you would like the "guidelines not enforced" claim mentioned in the article, I'm ok with mentioning it. In a neutral way, that is.Poison sf 20:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Check the citation rules again. What I am referencing is a statement about what ACTUALLY appears on the SF website and the references are ACTUAL proof. There is no better cite than that. As for citing respectable sources - I fully agree that your website isn't respectable - but it IS of the utmost respectability as a source proving the existence of threads on your site. They are direct proof and there is no more reliable or 'respectable' proof than that. Check the guidelines again please. Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, if you would like, that should be moved into separate section, because it's unnecessary bloat in the lead paragraph. Also it's unclear what's the criteria? If you want to mention all notable sections, then why no even brief mention of international sections or newslinks sections?

You are welcome to include them yourself.

OK I'll see what can be done. I propose a "bulleted" list including all subsections with brief descriptions. Well, to avoid making it too bloated perhaps some may be lumped together in one line, for example all international sections may be mentioned briefly as one element in the bulleted list. Poison sf 20:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Do it and I'll look at it. Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Or did you try to select those which, in your view, are most "incriminating"? In that case it's strange, what's wrong with, for example, Strategy and Tactics section, in which political strategy and tactics are discussed?

Maybe there is nothing wrong with Strategy and Tactics and it is evidence that i'm NOT biased?

It's unclear at the moment, if the list of sections was intended to serve your argument on the "illegality guideline" issue, I propose moving it with all other related material to its own section.

It characterizes some forums, and forums are 90% of the site.

If it's not then it must either be dropped as unessential information not serving any practical purpose

Not acceptable - it is practically the most relevant info in the entire article

What, uninteresting and dull listing of few randomly and unsystematically picked forum subsections is the most relevant info in the entire article? LOL I understand you want to give some credit to yourself for adding it, but this is simply a ridiculous claim. Poison sf 20:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of an entry in an encyclopedia or other reference that was left out because it was dull, even though it was perfectly accurate and relevant, have you? Your website is rife with this sort of "argument" but this is the real world my friend - and you cannot censor me here. You guys just love to hand-wave arguments with 'irrelevant' and pretend that by invoking that magic word you win the argument. Laughable. Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

or otherwise a separate section should be created which would systematically and consistently cover ALL important sections of Stormfront. Poison sf 19:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You write it. Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to address other forums you are more than welcome, and if you describe them objectively and with cites I won't touch them. If you want to move it to another section I'm not entirely opposed to that, depending on how its done. Feel free to go ahead and do it and I'll take a look. Regards, Stick to the Facts 21:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's impossible to adequately address them in the lead section without unnecessarily bloating it. If anything, a new section must be created where it may be . The lead section may briefly mention the presence of many sections within Stormfront forum. That's the most logical layout. Poison sf 20:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll look at it. Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW if we really go into depths, ethnic cleansing is not even necessarily "an illegal activity".

Absurd. I don't even know what to say to this - I mean, just do a google on 'murder' and 'conspiracy to commit murder' and 'attempted murder' - then multiply that by millions. This is simply preposterous. Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There're precedents when such activity was fully legal. Examples: resettlement of nations accused of collaborating with Nazis in USSR after the WW2 (technically can be seen as "ethnic cleansing", also ethnic cleansing that happened in not so distant past in Africa (of White people, in this case - orders from state to surrender and leave property etc, technically may be seen as ethnic cleansing). Resettlement of Germans from some areas of Germany after the defeat in WW2. If somebody modifies laws so that they permit ethnic cleansing it may even be illegal (I'm not saying it's likely to happen, just that it's theoretically possible and has historical precedence). Poison sf 20:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, no flying invisible frog alien hypotheticals please. Now, since you are such an expert on WWII history, I'm sure you are aware that the Nazis on trial at Nuremberg were denied using the 'tu quoque' defense. (I won't deign to insult you by explaining what the "tu quoque" defense is since you are such a WWII expert.) In fact, this defense cannot be used in criminal law (although it can be used in civil cases under some circumstances - but then it only applies if the PLAINTIFF did those acts - not just that SOMEONE did those acts. Ok in some cases it can also be where the plaintiff allowed a third party to do those acts - but again, that is CIVIL cases only and not criminal defense.) (again, not legal advice, if you want legal advice see a lawyer - also see disclaimer above) Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As we previously agreed, we're not talking about what is legal or illegal in a criminal court, so this is pretty irrlevant whether Nazis were or were not allowed to use something in defense. I'm not acting as an advocate of Nazis here, fortunately, merely as an advocate of SF :). What I'm saying: there're precedents in history when something that can be called "ethnic cleansing" was performed and it wasn't considered illegal by the law the perpetrators were subject to (at least I didn't hear about anybody being convicted for those actions, under either US law or any other kind of law). Even in Africa today, a Black government can just introduce a law to expel White farmers and, here you go, completely legal action. So this means that if somebody argues for ethnic cleansing in some distant and hypothetical future, it's not necessarily to be seen as advocacy of "illegal activity". It may be advocacy of chaning the laws so that it's not illegal activity any more. I'm not claiming that it's realistic or will happen, just pointing out a theoretical possibility. In the light of recent developments, in particular things you said in the new discussion section that you created, I don't know if it's even of any use to continue this discussion. Feel free to either continue or drop it I don't mind any way Poison sf 21:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Continue here 9-7-06

There, you should be happy now. There is no implication that any of the posts violate the guidelines or are in themselves illegal. All arguments regarding whether they "advocate or suggest" anything are moot. I've also helped you out by 'decluttering' the overview part of the article since you seemed so concerned about it.

I'm not really so concerned about mention that guidelines are violated or that the posts are illegal. I'm absolutely ok with that as long as stated neutrally. Such a controversial issue usually is handled on wikipedia by quoting some notable third party or mentioning the opinion in a way like "It's alleged" or, like I offered, "Critics argue". Poison sf 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, point is moot now since it's gone. Moving right along... Stick to the Facts 05:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Now that I've done you a favor, I expect you to do ME a favor - do not remove any information that cites to good references as described by the wiki guidelines. Look them over - pointing to a thread on your forum is *direct proof* that that thread exists - if it is there and cited, *do not* touch it. Do not introduce anything unless you are prepared to provide a cite. Don't call 'registered user accounts' "members" - they are not. I expect you will follow the wiki guidelines from here on out or I might decide not to be so lenient in the future.

I never did claim that registered user accounts are members so I don't understand why you bother myself with this BS. Is this some sort of insinuation or what? I remember aggreeing to this edit in the very beginning and I see it as pretty inflammatory that something else is apparently insinuated here. Poison sf 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been extremely lenient with you. I was willing to let a lot of very questionable un-cited material stand without references in the spirit of collegiality. If you persist in replacing cited fact with unfounded conjecture and puffery, I'll have to start listening to my conscience a bit more and will remove every shred of unsupported info and non-NPOV - right down to the last letter and bit of punctuation. This is not the first time I've told you this but it is most certainly the last.

If you want to win arguments with a simple wave of the hand and an "irrelevant" or "unoriginal", there is a place for that. But not here. Go back to your fantasy land if that's what you want - here we play by grown-up rules. Stick to the Facts 18:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't "patronize" me, I'm not the person who may be impressed by something like that. I don't take you for an ultimate expert and arbiter of how to edit wikipedia and I find many of your edits questionable myself. Also it would help if you're a bit less pompous. Poison sf 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should work a bit to earn some respect so I won't feel compelled to patronize you. If you think my edits are questionable then I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the guidelines, as I have.

• I continue to have a serious issue with the section about forum sections (silly wording but I can't help). As a comprehensive summary of all themes and topics of content at Stormfront it's outrageously incomplete and pathetic. As a summary of all issues on Stormfront you've grievances with, it may even be a valuable material (as I said I don't object to having such opinions being mentioned as long as it's covered in a neutral way), but then it shouldn't be dressed up as something describing the forum structure. That's pretty transparent and not fooling anybody. Let's work on ways to neutrally mention the negative things about Stormfront that you think the public must be informed about, without pretending that lumping few of such together is an adequate description of forum's structure and content. There're better ways to do that and ways that I'm in no way objecting to. I'm pretty much ok with mentioning any possible critique of Stormfront as long as it's mentioned in a neutral way (e.g. "critics argue" or "opponents are pointing out" etc. Poison sf 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I'm willing to play along. But let's not include a full laundry list of all 50+ forums. If you feel that I have been unnecessarily biased in the forums I've chosen to hilight, feel free to include some of your own. Which ones do you think show the best face of stormfront? The cooking one, the dating one, what ever you want, be my guest. (but don't forget to provide link...) Stick to the Facts 05:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I say either include a more or less complete list if there's a special section about it or drop this altogether. Complete means no less than the list I've included. Though, I wouldn't object if it's shortened a bit by grouping some forums together, in a similar way that international forums were grouped. Maybe some of the forums can be grouped into a single element of the bulleted list called "Socializing" (with forum names in parentheses) etc. Perhaps, something less symplistic and more "academic" looking than a bulleted list with few copy pasted descriptions can be written that would be acceptable, but, at the moment, I don't have any ideas of what that would be and can't invest a lot of time trying to come up with such stuff. Poison sf 20:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

So, basically to take it into a more practical domain: I'm moving that to a controversy section, because, objectively, it's just a critique of Stormfront by opponent, not any kind of comprehensive encyclopedical coverage of forums that are available on Stormfront. Thus, the proper place for it is "controversies" or maybe some new "critique" section, if you desire. Poison sf 21:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no 'controvery' or 'critique' in simply naming some forums. I don't pass judgment on them. Put your own in but leave mine where they are. Stick to the Facts 05:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Haha. Come on, whom are you're trying to kid with this. That's an obvious critique and belongs to an appropriate section. That can't pass as any kind of a neutral summary of what forums are on Stormfront. "Simply naming some forums" is not encyclopedic. There should be a clear and neutral criteria. I can understand if, for example, numbers of posts / threads are used as a criteria. Or something else that satisfies the policy of neutrality. In that version, the criteria is obviously to select some material that is seen as "damaging". This is a critique... critique is nothing else than just a mention of some traits of something or someone that are seen as bad or negative. Poison sf 20:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved that information (in its essense, a critique) to Controversies. Nothing essential was deleted, if I'm not wrong, except that I reduced redundancy (like multiple references to the same ethnic cleansing thread) and also the revisionist-related information ("the holohoax thread") which I've merged into the forum sections list (because I think it's fair enough and neutral to mention revisionism/denial in the description of the forum called "Revisionism"). Poison sf 21:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• From a quick glance on the recent edits, I can say that some cites don't seem to be supporting the claims in the article. For example, you give a big-boards link as a reference for a claim about the dropping numbers of active members - but where is it supported on bigboards?

Scroll down to the graphs - it is there. Stick to the Facts 05:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There isn't an active members statistic there, or am I missing something?

I agree, there isn't - I changed to active user accounts.

I still fail to see where are active user accounts on Big boards. I see statistics by number of posts, number of members, daily unique visitors, daily page views and online users. Below that, there's a member origin by country pie chart. Do you refer to one of this or is my software playing tricks on me or what? That's the URL I'm using to see it: http://www.big-boards.com/board/339/, as pointed to by the big-boards banner. Poison sf 20:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, that the members have been decreasing is a fact, which is even discussed on Stormfront itself. The number started decreasing approximately when it would be expected, which is several months after the start of summer (because of the definition of what an active member is, the effect from the summer traffic drop is delayed for several months - as long as it takes for the system to note that the user haven't been active).

Sure, although it has been trending downward for longer than that.... and it is September and still not coming up...Stick to the Facts 05:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Prior to the summer and even some time during it there was a stagnation or very mild growth, as far as I remember. I didn't record it anywhere though so I may be wrong. Poison sf 20:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly, the number wasn't growing fast even prior to that. It was usually either growing slowly or stagnant. Nevertheless, you need to either improve the reference or change the wording to refer to some stats that are actually monitored by bigboards - say, unique daily users or online users (these stats have declined recently also so it may satisfy your "goals" as well). The wording like "Futhermore" etc is also undesirable there - it's argumentative language useful to "make a point", while, as I once seen it put around here, on wikipedia you're not supposed to be "making points", just stating facts in a neutral and abstract way and summarizing all notable theories and opinions on the matter. Currently I will remove the "active members" claim to "motivate" you to improve it ;). Poison sf 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Shucks I don't get to use the tu quoque defense either?  :( LOL I will look at the exact language on the graph and use it word for word Stick to the Facts 05:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Another thing... although it's pretty minor, I mentioned it in edit summary before and mention it again: I don't think that unless you're administrator or a moderator with access to forum internals, you can say who had posted or not posted. This is relating to the passage where it's claimed how many people posted or not posted. What you can reliably say is that no posts or less than so and so posts are SHOWING (or "active", "visible" or any other wording of choice) on the board. Because posts/threads are routinely deleted, even a whole forum was once pulled (Stormfront Germany). It can probably be inferred by anybody from such statistics, that most of those who don't have any posts showing indeed posted nothing or little. But it may be incorrect to say that ALL of those people posted nothing. At the very least it's drawing more from the evidence available that it can back with 100% reliability Poison sf 20:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I imagine most of those without posts are either fake accounts opened by moderators to pump up the number of 'members', or are accounts of 'antis' who had their posts deleted and gave up - but still count toward your total of 'members'.

Not necessarily. Posting public posts outside of open forums is not the only feature an account gives. One can also subscribe to threads for more convenient reading, including email notifications, which is very useful, communicate with members via private messages etc. So I can see why a lot of people could be owning accounts with little or no posts. Or you can even be true. For me there's no way to tell and neither there's for you, I suppose, so it's better to, ahem, "stick to the facts". Poison sf 20:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You must consider that the number of Active Users is, as a general trend, dropping. This means that all of the new accounts being registered are still fewer in number than those who registered 180 days ago and have not returned to the forum since. Since "antis," trolls, fake/joke accounts and multiple accounts by the same people all count toward the now 92,000+ total, the more reliable measure of the members' activity is the Active Members count. There are three different counts which often get confused in these discussions: The total number of registered accounts, the number of those accounts who can be reasonably described as active on the site, and the number of active accounts which belong to true White Nationalists.

Also - I think I took that language out but ill check. Stick to the Facts 05:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC) PS I know who you are now. Does D know which articles you spend your time editing? Does he mind? *grin*

I'm thrilled! So who am I? And who is the mysterious D? Poison sf 20:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding some of your edit summaries:

• "No evidence that *most* say they are white nationalists - provide references to back up)" - when removing the claim that most users refer to themselves as white nationalists. LOL, I consider it very funny how you selectively remove "unreferenced" material, when, ironically, nothing it that paragraph at all is referenced. I guess it's pretty difficult to prove how "most" members describe themselves, as I don't know of any such statistic, I'll move it to "popular descriptions" then. Poison sf 21:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW I noticed earlier that you had an issue with a claim that Stormfront is the "first site of its kind" or something like that and you said something like "according to site software it's online since 2001". Just so that you know, the current software shows only the date when it was installed. Prior to introduction of vBulletin, it was operating on some less advanced software base. I wasn't even around at that time, but I remember this from reading some articles. I think it's mentioned in some articles listed here (in the article, that is) in the 'External Links' section. I'm not even sure it changes anything, just felt like pointing this out. I'll recheck edit history to see if something related to that edit of yours needs to be restored. Poison sf 21:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, "redundant info - should be on the martinlutherking site not here" (your edit summary) - martinlutherking site was MERGED in here few days ago, if you didn't notice. So this information is not redundant. Poison sf 21:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

please poison, keep an eye on the page. the introduction gets continously edited and crippled to one sentence. thank you. --83.181.94.32 17:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, in a way I do keep an eye on it (it's in my watch list). You can always help yourself :). It would be certainly good. I can't be around all the time. Poison sf 18:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

the intro is crippled again..... StickToTheFacts deleted it..--213.101.243.32 12:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I put it in my watch list as well....--ExplicitImplicity 14:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There's another issue I want to call attention to. Stick to the Facts is pushing this:

The site features forums such as: "Revisionism" [6], featuring a 'stickied' thread titled "The Holohoax Thread" [7]; "Self Defense, Martial Arts & Preparedness" [8], featuring 'stickied' threads titled "What to do (or not do) when the FEDS knock!"[9] and "Free ethnic cleansing manual"[10]; and "Strategy and Tactics"[11]. The website also features a Youth forum[12], featuring a 'stickied' thread featuring an essay that makes a case for an anti-government revolution titled "Why Revolution?"[13] The site contains numerous threads devoted to such topics as ethnic cleansing [14] and anti-government Civil War II military tactics [15].

As an "appropriate" content for the section named "Forums", thus, supposedly, one that would be expected to provide neutral coverage of forum content. In my opinion, this version violates the most important policy - neutrality. It's simply ridiculous to try to pass this as neutral. Totally one-sided and obviously critical POV. If this is neutral, that I don't know what is NOT. I'm also seeking any other comments on this, because of course I could be wrong... If anybody agrees please watch this section too and keep it neutral. If possible try to come up with some compromise version, any suggestions are appreciated. Thanks. Poison sf 21:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

you are generally right, this is a bias. but a complete list is also no solution. i am unsure how to treat the problem, but generally stormfront.org is not notable because it is a forum in which white people exchange homemaking tips. this happens everywhere and is absolutely not notable. it would be fair however to introduce one or two sentences like "In addition to the aforementioned, stormfront.org also hosts discussion forums pertaining to less controversial discussions like homemaking and..." ...what the fuck do they talk about ??? i am quite astonished....--ExplicitImplicity 21:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that just mentioning cooking or whatever adequately balances the POV of that passage. I argue that for the section to be NPOV there must be a clear criteria why one or another thread was selected as representative. Selecting the most "controversial" content for a "Forums" section is not neutral. If it was "Controversial topics" section then it would have more sense.

One simple criteria is undiscriminatingly mentioning all forums. I'm of course ready to hear proposals for some other clearly defined and neutral criteria. IMO it's pretty clear that in this particular case (the version above) the criteria is to present a "critique" of Stormfront by summarizing some threads appearing especially bad. Actually, the content for this section originated as "evidence" compiled by 'Stick to the Facts' that Stormfront doesn't enforce guidelines. I argued that this is somewhat POV and offered to move it to Controversies and reword in NPOV way (i.e. something like "Critics argue that guidelines are not enforced because of threads like ...."). Then it's more or less NPOV - a particular point of view and its arguments presented neutrally. I still think that's the best place for this material. But, instead, 'Stick to the Facts' chosen to just remove the claim about not enforcing guidelines, but started to push the remaining information (i.e. some threads compiled to demonstrate his point of view that guidelines are not enforced) as content for a new "Forums" section, pretending that it's encyclopedic and neutral coverage of this issue, which of course it is not. Poison sf 22:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the forum-section, have a look at it. the first two sentences are now "The Stormfront White Nationalist Community is an Internet forum. Its motto is "White Pride World Wide". It is a self-described White nationalist website, but it is referred to as a Neo-Nazi group by a variety of media sources[1][2][3][4][5]." I believe this is NPOV and as i gave 5 sources, 1 mainstream (post-gazette), 2 left (nation, dailykos) and 2 right (foxnews,WIPO), clearly verifiable.--ExplicitImplicity 15:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the lead section is now more or less ok. Forum-section now is much less objectionable than before. Perhaps I'll make some changes later, but for the moment it's an improvement. I have doubts about "anti-government conspiracy", I don't think there was anything clearly conspirational in the thread, but I'll need to check it again thoroughy; also may be it can be expanded here and there. Poison sf 17:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the mention of AOL issue got lost in the flurry of edits... At the moment I'm going to put it back, because, while depending on Stormfront alone as the source is against Wikipedia standarts, stating so in a neutral way (mentioning it as Stormfront's claim) in the controversies section is ok, IMO... Poison sf 17:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Another issue - decreasing active users. Is this kind of statistics available on big-boards? I am trying and trying but still failing to notice it. I don't know if I'm doing something wrong or what. 'Stick to the Facts' previously claimed it's there, but he can't really be trusted. Comments from anybody else would be appreciated. Maybe it's "daily unique visitors" instead what is referred to? Poison sf 17:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

More about "anti-government conspiracy" : after reading the thread very carefully, I can say with confidence that it's a very long shot to make such claim. Government is rarely mentioned, though when it is, the descriptions are very negative. But there's no discussion of conspiracy or anything like that. This part has to be reworded to avoid far-fetched stuff like this. Poison sf 18:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Point Of View Violation / Troll

Someone completely dismembered this whole page, destoyed any sembelence of npov that the article had, not to mention removed all images. It was basicly defaced and vandalized and thus should be reverted to an earlier state. --Anonymous

This user sure is screwing up the page: 198.142.19.202

When it comes to hatred, the anti racists have us beat in that department.

We may criticise Blacks and jews, but it is criticism of their behavior and nothing else. I have hundreds of screen shots from websites that call us haters that are filled with the most disgusting hateful comments imaginable. The people who criticise us regularly discuss how much they would like to rape and murder children. I have screen shots of cartoons they have drawn that ridicules the victims of 9/11 and the collapse of the twin towers. I have seen threads written by the so called, "tolerant" people that have more racial epithets in them than all of the threads in Stormfront combined. Alot of these "hate" posts on Stormfront were written by anti racists pretending to be White Nationalists. They like to make posts filled with racial epithets and plans of genocide so that they can post them on their own websites to show how hateful White Nationalists are. This is the same as a jew painting a swastika on his synogog and saying that White supremacists did it.

Here is an example of the hatred coming from a fake White Nationalist. This anti also left a link to hard core pornography with the intention of children seeing it. http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/caleeb/DaKiaser.png --Anonymous

i restored the site to an acceptable state.--ExplicitImplicity 15:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Can behaviour by Stick to the Facts be classified as vandalism? I think that he crossed the line after which it's already not a normal dispute over content but a disruptive behavior... If he's vandalizing the article then in countering him one is no longer bound by 3RR rule, though so far I'm not sure, maybe I'm not fully impartial here, so I'll not do more than 3 reverts yet... Poison sf 18:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

i placed an 3rr-warning on his/her talk page and invited him/her to talk to us here on the talk page. if he/she continues to delete information from this really well referenced (imho over-referenced) article i believe it is vandalism. but i have no clue on how to report it. *g* no, i have good faith.... *fg* --ExplicitImplicity 19:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Due to extensive deletion of material with cited references - repeatedly - and people reinserting non-NPOV material - repeatedly - I have sometimes been forced to revert even though some valid content had been inserted in the interim. There is a simple way to avoid losing this content - simply follow the wiki rules, do not delete relevant cited information, do not persist in posting non-NPOV statements, do not try to back something up with no more to a cite on your own website saying the same thing you are citing - that is not a valid cite. Please do not 'cherry pick' information - IE don't say that a thread is anti-hitler when 90% of the messages are pro hitler. That is just as inappropriate as saying a Vatican website has pro-satan content because you can cherry-pick a couple of messages from it.

Do not refuse to accept a characterization of something merely because you have your own euphamism for it. Genocide is genocide. I've provided cites to international and US statutory authority and definitions. I don't care if you call genocide "donating to charity" - a spade is still a spade. If you dispute that it is illegal I suggest you contact the Justice Department or the FBI and get their opinion. Until then it stays. Meanwhile, I think I'm going to go look for some more threads along those lines, just to give everyone a better feel for the content on stormfront. Regards, Stick to the Facts 03:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way - someone has a name almost identical to mine with one 'i' replaced with an accented i. I can tell the difference. Stick to the Facts 03:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• sigh* here I am back from fixing some more deleted cites. Ironic that the stormfront guys are the ones who contacted an admin first. Stick to the Facts

Stíck to the Facts is at it again, clearly using a deceptive name to try to get me or someone else to revert to one of his edits. Please do not persist in deleting cited content. If you are having trouble coming to terms with the fact that your site is perfuse with discussion of criminal activity that are the absolutely most abhorrent crimes imaginable, I suggest that rather than try to edit my entries, you get the content off the stormfront website. Cheers, Stick to the Facts 03:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference number 45 is a troll and should not be included because the person was swiftly banned, likely for being an agent provocateur. Please remove it. --Anon

1) I haven't been banned ever, period, not for 1 second.

2) It is a very real thread, the content is in the original post of the thread, the discussion continues throughout, has 35 posts, and the cite is a direct link to the google cache of the thread.

3) It is factual and characterizes content on the cite.

Regards, Stick to the Facts 01:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

14.09

section for new issues.

• The demanded source for BBS / "on the internet since 1995" claim is the SPLC report. The footnotes currently assigned numbers 6 and 7 were intended to serve as a reference for two sentences before them. The passage in SPLC report I'm referring to is

Once there, he began dabbling with his computer, eventually setting up a dial-up bulletin board service for the radical right. By March 1995, that service evolved into Stormfront, the Net's best-known hate site.

Perhaps, if it's really causing so much confusion, let's use that reference two times or something. Otherwise 'Stick to the Facts' will continue to refuse reading the primary source articles and repeating "gimme a cite" until he foams at the mouth. This leads to the next point:

• Footnotes are a friggin mess! Ugly links and many duplicates. I'll try to start working on transforming it into something more comprehensive, utilizing the reference syntax where one item is referred to in several places of the article... I've seen it elsewhere. Also normal captions for those links must be created so that it's not some ugly and incomprehensible glibberish. Poison sf 19:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please try to use more appropriate language, this isn't your living room. I'm providing more and more cites in the hope that you'll eventually 'get it.' I can add 50 more if you remain unconvinced that there are threads that advocate or suggest genocide. I can find more threads, if you'd like. You can ask the Justice Department or FBI to have a look at them too, if you're concerned. Stick to the Facts 19:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"Ethnic cleansing" as advocated on the forum and described in the book is punishable by death. Do you not believe that? I have a cite now. Do NOT remove it.

If you doubt the illegality I encourage you to contact the FBI or the DOJ, bring the forum to their attention, and then ask them for a determination. If they say that activity is not illegal then I'll drop it. Otherwise, I have a cite, so it stays. Thanks a bunch. Stick to the Facts 21:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

look, the problem is not, that it is not punishable by death. i believe you that it is, at least in some states. but that is not NOTABLE. that it is illegal is NOTABLE, that it can be punished by death is NOT.

Parking in front of a fire hydrant is illegal. "Ethnic cleansing" is illegal. I think it is not unreasonable to distinguish the two. If the stormfront types are really concerned about this, perhaps they should reexamine the nature of the content on their forum. That will make this unneccesary. I provided a cite, it stays. Stick to the Facts 00:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

the same for your statement referring to Don Black. He is an ex-convivt and dragon-wizard of the KKK. but that is not very important for this site. that is information that should be given, when inquiring about Don Black on Don Black (nationalist). I hope you accept this, or provide your differing opinion here. Thank you, Stick_to.----ExplicitImplicity 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The other information about Don Black was uncited and is unaccpetable. The info I cited is. If you really insist on leaving out the ex convict part I will consider it, but ONLY on condition that all uncited content be left out as well. The sentence would then read "The webmaster is Don Black."

To put this matter to rest for good - I am going to actually cut and paste the exact statutory language - the elements of genocide are NOT limited to killing people, it also includes forced migration and other things. What you are discussing on SF clearly includes this. It doesn't matter whether you call it 'ethnic cleansing' or genocide - as long as the elements are met it is genocide no matter what YOU call it. You can call robbing a bank 'tying my shoe laces' but you are still robbing a bank.

The punishment also includes advocating, planning, etc etc. There is no doubt that what is discussed in that forum is talking about activity that is genocide and punishable by death. Again, if you doubt me, go contact the Justice Department and the FBI and ask them what they think.

The definition of genocide and punishment is defined under international treaty and is given effect by US federal statues under 18 USC (ie federal criminal code.) SO in other words, it doesn't matter that the basis is in international law, that law is given the effect of US law (in EVERY part of the US) by the statutes.

The definitions: see http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm

Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide

"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

   (a) Killing members of the group;
   (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
   (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
   (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
   (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:

   (a) Genocide;
   (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
   (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
   (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
   (e) Complicity in genocide. "

See here for a description of the US statutory basis for giving effect to these laws under US law: see http://www.amicc.org/usinfo/us_law.html.

OK, are there any questions? Stick to the Facts 01:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved around the forum contents a bit to keep the substantive forums from getting buried underneath the cooking and fishing type forums. Why don't you people want the world to know what your site is about? (*shrug*) Stick to the Facts 02:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed uncited material - also no indication whatsoever given that they are controversial. Stick to the Facts 02:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Be REALLY careful when you go around saying "so and so accuses so and so" of something. You cited a home-grown stormfront webpage. There is no evidence such an email was ever sent or that there is any litigation or threat of litigation whatsoever. It doesn't take a genius to realize you'd better think twice before making baseless accusations against anyone (especially when they have billions of dollars in assets.) Stick to the Facts 02:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As always, not legal advice, if you need legal advice see a lawyer, see disclaimer. Stick to the Facts 19:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't hard to cite guys. Uncited material will be delted. Cited and relevant material will stay. Cited but irrelevant material will be deleted. Read the wiki rules please. Stick to the Facts 02:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed solicitation for donations, see wiki rules. Stick to the Facts 02:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Don Black's other activities belong on Don Black's article or its own article but it is irrelevant to stormfront.

Removed more unverified, uncited material that people keep putting back in....see the wiki rules please, thanks. Stick to the Facts 04:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, you miserably failed to prove that ethnic cleansing equals genocide, even with all those quotes... Poison sf 19:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Come on, you can do better than that. Is that what you'd say to the judge after he hands down a sentence? "I'm sorry judge, you failed miserably to prove that "walking the dog" equals murder." If the elements are satisfied it doesn't matter what YOU call it.

I should also note, as a side note, that if anyone of your acquiantance, say, a convicted felon, owns guns, it doesn't matter if he says "they aren't guns, they are a security device for my home" - that isn't going to save your friend from going back in. (Not legal advice, get a lawyer if you need one, see disclaimer) - Stick to the Facts 19:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Legal technicalities, based on your POV and personal research are not material that qualifies for wikipedia standarts. Ethnic cleansing and genocide are separate concepts. There's even a wikipedia article about it, stating:

[E]thnic cleansing [...] defies easy definition. At one end it is virtually indistinguishable from forced emigration and population exchange while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide. At the most general level, however, ethnic cleansing can be understood as the expulsion of an "undesirable" population from a given territory due to religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological considerations, or a combination of these

Ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing. So far, in normal use, ethnic cleansing and genocide are different concepts... ethnic cleansing is the broader concept among these, which may or may not incorporate genocide as means depending on the case Poison sf 20:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing/death penalty

Let there be no question in your minds, my friends, that the most recent thread I found DIRECTLY ADVOCATES genocide (aka 'ethnic cleansing') I have provided above the legal definition of 'genocide' as used in internation and US statutes. The discussion fits. The possible penalty is the death penalty. (I'm not saying the DISCUSSION is criminal (although it might be in the US and definitely is in some countries) but the activity discussed clearly is.) In case you don't scroll up, this includes moving populations and forcing or coercing the movement of populations - it doesn't necessarily involve murdering anyone.

This stays in unless 1) a wiki admin demands that it be taken out, at which time I will leave it out while I pursue an appeal of the decision to the highest wiki authority 2) the statutes change and it is no longer illegal (lots of luck with that one) or 3) the threads are removed. Even though they are cached by google for all eternity, with your identities a single subpoena away, I will remove the entry here if you remove them from your site. Thanks a bunch, Stick to the Facts 06:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Looky looky, found another thread directly advocating and suggesting 'ethnic cleansing.' Stick to the Facts 06:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I stumbled upon a nice little poll showing that the most popular choice of SF respondents was ethnic cleansing. You rascals! Stick to the Facts 06:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Repairing more vandalism

Let's try to stick with the Wiki rules about cited material (among other things). Stick to the Facts 15:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edit was mine, forgot to log in. More cited content removal without explanation. See wiki rules, thanks a bunch. Stick to the Facts 14:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Repaired another revert which removed cited content without explanation. What are you guys trying to hide, everything is also available on google and you can't remove that. Have a nice day, Stick to the Facts 15:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Had to remove another solicitation for donations. 141.156.165.35 15:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Had to remove some irrelevant content. This belongs in another article. I also wrote the last entry. Stick to the Facts 15:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed uncited info - the 'cite' that was provided was merely an unsupported claim to the same information on the stormfront website - that is not a valid cite, please see wiki rules. Thanks, and have a nice day :) Stick to the Facts 15:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

The Three-revert rule (or 3RR) is an official policy which applies to all Wikipedians. 3RR violations are reported here.

The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period. This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day.

To date this rule has been consistently violated on this page. That needs to stop.

Also removing material because it disagrees with your POV is vandalism. This needs to stop. Brimba 16:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. There are repeated removals of cited material. I urge editors to consult the wiki guidelines regarding citations. If have, on occasion, been forced to revert because of frequent vandalism to the article. I have repeatedly told other users that I will not remove valid material that is cited and I expect them to do the same. Some material is not appropriate even if it is cited, however - including soliciting donations, sections that are irrelevant to the subject of the article, etc. This is spelled out in the wiki guidelines. Entries that merely cite the same uncited information on the stormfront website is also inappropriate - see wiki guidelines. Citations to direct evidence (ie a statement that the forum says X with a direct cite to where it says X on the website) are appropriate. Information that mischaracterizes the cited information is inappropriate. Cherry-picking is inappropriate. It is inappropriate to characterize a thread as being anti-Hitler, or to say that Stormfront expresses anti-Hitler viewpoints, merely because it contains one or two anti-Hitler messages if it contains dozens of other pro-Hitler messages. This is like saying the Vatican website contains satanic threads or that the Vatican expresses satanic viewpoints just because there is a smattering of such posts.

Just because you call something 'ethnic cleansing' does NOT mean that it also isn't genocide, no moreso than calling a homicide a 'friendly chat' makes it not homicide. If the activity satisfies the elements of 'genocide', it is genocide - no matter what you call it. I have included numerous citations to the legal definitions and statutory basis for the crime of genocide in both international AND US federal law. I have also included cites to several threads advocating genocide on the stormfront forums. Genocide is not limited to killing, and the crime is not limited to actually performing the activity. It also includes forced removal of individuals. It also includes "(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group". Merely planning it etc can lead to a conviction, even if no affirmative acts have been undertaken. I have also included the text of the relevant statutes above, please refer to them for more information.

Here's to a future unbiased and fact-supported Stormfront article. Regards, Stick to the Facts 16:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Edited out unsupported and uncited info. How do you define a stormfront "member"? How do you know what the majority think - has a statistically relevant poll been taken? If so please cite, along with how 'membership' is determined. Stick to the Facts 17:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Repaired vandalism by Stíck to the Facts - note that name is different from mine. Stick to the Facts 18:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixing more vandalism by Poison SF. No reasoning given for removing material with citations to direct proof. Stick to the Facts 19:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

More vandalism, request moderator to block editing for people repeatedly removing cited content - particularly when done without explanation. Please consult wiki guidelines, thanks. Stick to the Facts 19:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Explanation: non-neutral content, a violation of the most important wikipedia policy (neutrality). Relatively neutral lead section that mentioned all sides got replaced by judgemental and perjurious section oversaturated with claims cooked up by you. Also, you lie when you say there was no explanation, it was stated in edit summary that the edit is NPOV-related Poison sf 19:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"perjurious"? I lied under oath? Oh, you mean "slanderous". Look up the definition - to be slanderous the statement MUST be untrue, and it MUST cause you damage resulting from lost reputation. What I said is true, it hasn't caused you damage, and if it does, or causes you lost reputation, then do yourself a favor and get it off your site. Don't go throwing accusations around when you don't know what the words mean, buy a dictionary. Thanks a bunch and have a nice day. Stick to the Facts 19:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, that isn't legal advice, if you need legal advice go ask a lawyer. See disclaimer elsewhere on this page. Thanks a bunch, Stick to the Facts 19:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I wanted to say "pejorative". Anyway, the information is obviously non-neutral and one-sided. It doesn't matter if it's "true" or not "true". It's not what defines neutrality. BTW a lot of this information was already in the article. So it's not a matter of true or untrue, it's a matter of you deleting a neutral information and replacing it with a collection of your complains against Stormfront... IMO. Regarding advices, I don't need advices from you, legal or otherwise, thanks. Poison sf 19:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You need advice from someone. Stick to the Facts 20:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of your blatant POV: you removed mention that broad range of topics, including non-political and casual discussion is present on site and inserted a version heavily skewed to your POV and devised to create an impression every whole thread is about discussion of ethnic cleansing or something. This is not neutral.

I may have over-erased unintentionally. Perhaps it is now located elsewhere? I will not remove valid cited information. Of course, even if it is cited it might not be valid. Please consult the wiki guidelines and don't expect me to do your homework for you. Thanks a bunch, Stick to the Facts 19:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This is your POV version:

Permitted content includes favorable presentation of criminal activity punishable by death under US and international law[9] [10] [11] [12][13] [14] including ethnic cleansing/genocide [15] [16] [17] [18]. An informal poll on the Stormfront website titled "How will we curb non-white increase in WN government?" indicated that the top choice of respondents was ethnic cleansing[19].

Poison sf 19:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I know what it says, I wrote it, remember? It isn't non-NPOV. It is fact and it is cited. It is appropriate. If you dispute any facts please let me know. And don't expect to just be able to wave your hand at it - parse through the definition and specifically point out how the activities discussed do not fit the definition of genocide as defined by law. Thanks a bunch, Stick to the Facts 19:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I've an idea who wrote it. Anyway, the discussion here is intended to anybody else who may be interested not just you. Now it is not appropriate. That it's a "fact" or "cited" is irrelevant. Selecting PART of facts basing on criteria to support one's position is non neutral. That's what you're tryig to do. You are trying to stuff the section with mentions of material on Stormfront you're most agitated about. Why, for example, exactly these few links are selected? Because you see them as most damaging to the site's reputation, right? So you've created a section that gives disproportional amount of attention to issues you see as most negative and damaging. This is, of course, not neutral. Although, I'm not talking about whether it's factual or not. The threads mentioned are real, the criteria you use to select material is non neutral. That's the point, not lack of cites. Poison sf 20:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As for selecting part of the facts - you are more than welcome - encouraged, actually - do dig up any info you want about genocide and include it. Make a case that it's not so bad. Make a case that it isn't really illegal because it's been done elsewhere. You have moderators. You can (and do) delete content. But you haven't deleted that. The content is material. The site is PERFUSE with discussion of genocide. I think I'm up to 4 threads so far that are extremely blatant from the title of the thread and first post, and those don't even include threads where it isn't mentioned in the original post or title of the thread but is advocated in a later message. I can include those too if you think I'm selecting an unrepresentative sample.

Also, if you want, you can share some threads about cuddling puppies, if you think that will take the edge off the genocide threads. On second thought, your website isn't really about cuddling puppies, so I guess drawing undue attention to it would be inappropriate after all.

As for damaging the site's reputation, is that even possible? YOU have control over the content, not me. Again, I will repeat - balance it out with the puppy-cuddling threads if you want neutrality. Or the threads about food drives for the homeless. Whatever works for you - I am sure you can find lots of examples of humanitarian gestures that will be sure to cancel out the effect of the genocide content - not. Stick to the Facts 20:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This was the proper NPOV version that is not one-sided critique like yours is:

Permitted content covers a broad range of racialist / racist and far right beliefs, including extreme forms such as the belief in global segregation and "ethnic cleansing" , as well as casual and non-political topics.

My entry is not "critique". It is an unbiased presentation of fact, heavily cited. I don't pass judgment on it at least not in this article. Now the MLK part, THAT's non-NPOV. Now I'm going to take a closer look at it. Thanks a bunch, Stick to the Facts 20:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh - and the removal of material because it conflicts with your POV is what Brimba said was "vandalism". Pardon my error elsewhere on page. I have to point out that you are explicitly stating that you have a different point of view. I rest my case. Thanks a bunch, Stick to the Facts 20:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

In a neutrality dispute where users are replacing parts of article with their own versions, this technically applies to both sides. Brimba's words are useful for a case when some "unpleasant" material is deleted altogether, but that's not the case, because, the article still contained many references to that kind of material (ethnic cleansing etc). It was actually mentioned in multiple places. So it wasn't really a matter of "removing material because it conflicts with one's POV", it' a matter of presenting all POVs in balanced way and not allowing a user, namely you, make an article his personal diatribe against Stormfront Poison sf 20:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. If you think my entry is non-NPOV, then what exactly do you call the portion on the martinlutherking.org section? Stick to the Facts 19:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to evade the topic please. If you have problems with martinlutherking please state so. Or modify it. Or do you think that any problems in that sections, real or existing in your imagination only, grant you a right to violate the neutrality in lead section and other places? Poison sf 19:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The webmaster of the site is Don Black. Also, I find it ridiculous that you now parrot the word "vandalism" with or without reason. Have new obsession now instead of "cite cite cite" droning, huh? Instead of making ridiculous claims please go read Wikipedia - "What vandalism is not" article in help. In particular, you removed mention of donations with this ridiculous edit summary. Adding information YOU don't want is not vandalism. Donations is notable and may be mentioned. If it's improperly worded then it can be reformatted. But you seem to be the only one who has an issue with mentioning that... Poison sf 19:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Review wiki guidelines. Stick to the Facts 20:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm only saying that you set the tone for neutrality here. I'm just following along. I still think that both are permissible, although I think the MLK stuff is worse. I've been willing to let it ride up till now, maybe I need to look at it a bit closer. Thanks for pointing it out. Stick to the Facts 20:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about MLK section. From what I noticed, it's not especially pro-MLK site or anything. In fact, I was thinking that it's somewhat on the anti side, because some of the most extreme-sounding material was chosen, perhaps that should be toned down, it just wasn't the most priority issue for me. Poison sf 20:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm using 'vandalism' in the context that the moderator Brimba used it, see above, thanks a bunch. Stick to the Facts 19:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You're using vandalism in a context that goes against its definition. Also, in the case that was the most annoying (passage about donations) it was YOU who was removing the information and what Brimba said was "Also removing material because it disagrees with your POV is vandalism.". His words can't possibly apply in this case (donations) to anybody BUT you, because you're removing. So you're again caught with silly lies, because neither Brimba's words nor anything else can't support that silly edit summary Poison sf 19:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, Brimba wasn't discussing the donations part. It is still vandalism to repeatedly insert prohibited material. You still haven't consulted the wiki guidelines - that's clear. Is it too hard for you to read? Get a translator. Thanks a bunch, Stick to the Facts 20:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Good that you acknowledge your mistake. Now, in the light of your repeated "mistakes" (assuming it's not deliberate lies and disruption, ahem), do you want me to trust your interpretation of wikipedia rules? Give a link or precise quote from a wikipedia policy prohibiting to mention, in a neutral way that does not solicit anything ("solicitation" is purely your invention), the fact that donations are collected by a site? Poison sf 20:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I categorically refuse to do your homework for you by quoting the rules to you. They are right here on the site. They are not hard to find. If your reading comprehension is too limited to understand the content then find an interpreter or consult an admin. I absolutely do not expect you to trust my interpretation of anything. Regards, Stick to the Facts 20:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So you're refusing to provide any arguments? This will be noted for future reference.

How terrifying! No, I'd be happy to provide arguments. Stick to the Facts 02:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW it IS hard to find because your statements are imprecise. It's first necessary to understand what you're talking about. That section wasn't soliciting donations in any way. It was merely mentioning the verifiable fact that donations are collected from members, the way they're claimed to be used and that money donors are publicly recognized by site.

And yet again, you fail to recognize that just because you can characterize a thing one way, does not mean it cannot also be characterized in another way. You are stating verifiable facts on the website - true. You are also soliciting donations: true. You provide a direct link to where donations can be made. Are you a non-profit organization? You know that you aren't. Stick to the Facts 02:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Lie and nonsense. "I" (BTW it wasn't me who wrote that section, I merely countered your non-npov and destructive edits, in particular removal of this info) don't provide link to where donations can be made (they can't be made on Stormfronts thread page per se, they're made through mail and other means).

No, but the cite is directly to a page that asks for and provides info for sending checks and (ahem) cash. I thought there was a pal pal link there. In any case, please accept my most humble of apologies for phrasing that badly. Doesn't matter, it is still a solicitation for donations. Very interesting - they don't have a link for paying by credit card or paypal, but you can send a PM and ask for info how to send it? Or call? Very curious....  :) 138.88.156.61 16:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, even if what you say would be a problem, nobody could ever give a link to a page with "donate through paypal" or say a link to a internet shop like amazon or something like that, and many sites do have such buttons (for example, free software sites, for donations) or other "commercial"-related material.

They have corporations here with links to where people can provide donations to them? Show me one.

BTW Stormfront claims to be non-profit.

Really? Where? Even if it does (and I can't find anything verifying that) I fail to see how that is in any way relevant - Stormfront IS NOT a non-profit organization and if it claims to be I want to know about it so I can contact the FBI immediately. Non-profit status is achieved through applying for non-profit status and being approved, and then for complying with the bookkeeping requirements and requirements for how the funds can be used, etc. Stormfront does all that? Seems hard to believe that Stormfront could even get through the first hurdle, described here: http://www.not-for-profit.org/page2.htm#Types%20of%20Nonprofit%20Corporations.

In any case, if it is a non-profit, then I'm sure it won't have any problem verifying that. Until that time, sorry. And even if it IS a non-profit (this is all purely hypothetical and will never happen) it still might not be "kosher". 138.88.156.61 16:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If it isn't, I wouldn't be concerned a lot that somebody is making profit, but so far I don't know any evidence it's so.

Unfortunately for you the burden of showing non-profit status is on the entity claiming the status. I don't imagine you know what could happen to you if you claimed to have such status and didn't, do you?

What is the point? Do you claim it is specifically permitted only to non-profit orgs and if so, by what criteria must they be classified so? Self-description, independent audit or what? Poison sf 11:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought you didn't need my advice? I cannot answer your legal questions. I will only make very general statements that apply to everyone, and even then, this is not legal advice and anyone seeking legal advice should see a lawyer. See my disclaimer elsewhere. Being a non-profit organization is something that must be applied for and approved and complied with. The status can be lost if the conditions are not met, and you have to lay your accounting out for inspection. If you self-describe your organization as non-profit and you aren't and then you collect money it is fraud, and if you try to collect money it is attempted fraud even if you never see a dime. (not legal advice, if you want legal advice see a lawyer, see disclaimer) 138.88.156.61 16:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I don't need your legal advices. I'm not asking for any here. I'm asking for your interpretation of wikipedia policy that, in your opinion, prohibits adding that material. Though, your dedication to meaningless chatter here IMO indicates you've nothing to say on the matter. Poison sf 07:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, assuming that you mean that any mention of accepted donations is banned on wikipedia, that would be simply absurd, because it would be impossible to write an article about any kind of charity or fund. Because one would not be allowed to speak about their primary function - receiving donations and using them for some purpose. Poison sf 21:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You provided a link with info on how to send in money. Take it up with an admin. ALso, you are not non-profit, whether or not you actually earn profit is another matter entirely.

Stormfront is neither a charity nor is it a non-profit organization, and to suggest otherwise is repugnant. Do you think Pepsi can state, as fact, that it sells Pepsi over the internet, and provide a link to where people can order it over the internet? I mean, it's a fact, right? And they can cite it, right? They can't - wiki has strict rules on advertising, I suggest you refer to them. If Pepsi can't sell through wiki, do you really believe they can ask for handouts? Please. Get a moderator if you really think it is appropriate for a profitable business to beg for money through wiki.

You're simply lying and inventing fantasies when you say somebody was begging for money in that part. Poison sf 10:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There are innumerable messages on the SF site that shamelessly beg for donations. It is kinda sick really, but I take comfort in knowing that Don can't own firearms. 138.88.156.61 16:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's an article that mentions donations: Electronic Frontiers Foundation. Do you argue it's againts the rules or that the mention of donations in there is somehow fundamentally different from the mention of donations in the Stormfront article? Poison sf 21:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm well one possibility that you are failing to see is that maybe no one ever complained? Or maybe donations to non-profit organizations are allowed? Stormfront is NOT a non-profit - it is a profitable "business" (actually I highly doubt it is even incorporated, but you would know a lot more about that than I would.) There is no accounting given of money that is sent to Stormfront. Would you care to submit filed tax return information for Stormfront to verify that it is a non-profit? I won't hold by breath for that. Stick to the Facts 02:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

SO. Answer my question directly. Is Electronic Frontier Foundation article's mention of donation against the rules (at least in your interpretation of them) or is it not? What are requirements to be not against the rules while mentioning it? Organization must claim to be non-profit or proved so by professional audit or what? Cite wikipedia policies please that state so, exact phrases. I can't be bothered to look through the whole wikipedia rules for something vague inferred from your insinuations (beggin for money etc). Poison sf 10:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Question - is it against the rules - I DONT KNOW. Is Stormfront asking for donations against the rules? YES - especially if it hasn't proven non-profit status, and perhaps even then. There, does that answer your question in words you can understand or look up easily? As for citing the rules - I have to look up this stuff just like everyone else. Once again, I am not doing your homework for you. If your reading comprehension isn't developed enough for you to understand them, then ask Don to help you, he really loves grammar and spelling and can probably use a dictionary pretty well. (I'll never figure out how he puts up with you.) 138.88.156.61 16:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume you're 'stick to'? OK I think I understand, you don't have any idea about this but just trying to obstruct improvement of the article. So far I haven't seen any relevant quotes from a wikipedia policy that should apply and any sensible interpreting of it that would prove the link was unacceptable. Instead there're loads upon loads of irrelevant nonsense. Clearly you have nothing sensible to say about this. Therefore I'm putting the material back. Feel free to provide a link to wikipedia policy with your interpretation how that applies, if you can. Poison sf 07:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV violations in the lead section

specifically this passage:

Permitted content includes favorable presentation of criminal activity punishable by death under US and international law[9] [10] [11] [12][13] [14] including ethnic cleansing/genocide [15] [16] [17] [18]. An informal poll on the Stormfront website titled "How will we curb non-white increase in WN government?" indicated that the top choice of respondents was ethnic cleansing[19].

complains about it:

• neutral passage (see below) was removed, replacing it with text heavily skewed to the negative side. Mentions of other type of content were removed, so as to make more of a point about illegal or "unsavory" content, without balancing it in a neutral way.

May have been unwittingly removed during a revert - everyone knows there have been massive attacks on the entry lately. Stick to the Facts 16:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. "Unwittingly" is a childish excuse. You've reverted that section many times. You want to say you didn't see what you're changing? Anyway, this is not the place to discuss why it was deleted. I state this as a flaw in the current version. Do you have anything to say on the subject why mention of any other content must be removed and replaced by exclusive mention of content related to illegality Poison sf 19:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Several pro-SF types have deleted my own content repeatedly without explanation or reasoning - that was not done unwittingly. I have never deleted any cited content unless it was otherwise inappropriate or incorrectly cited (self research.) If I have otherwise it was due to a revert to repair extensive changes. Stick to the Facts 20:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• a thread (poll) was inserted which is non-notable (12 posts, whopping 22 votes, 6 of them about ethnic cleansing) in context of a large forum, except when the criteria is to select most "unsavory" looking material, thus it's purpose is solely POV-purshing.

Ok I am going to come out and say this as plainly as I can. The ENTIRE theme of your website evokes genocidal imagery. Swastikas. Hiter icons. Nazi slogans and imagery. When people see those things the FIRST things they think of are WWII and the Holocaust. And you make direct references to the Holocaust all the time. I know you people always want to try to argue that the 'Holocaust" never happened - but know that EVEN IF all they ever did was forcibly move people (and I've never heard any of you argue that they didn't), even THAT is genocide. Genocide and ethnic cleansing are, in fact, darn near THE MOST prevalent themes of the entire website. This is FAR more important in describing the website than any puppy-cuddling thread. "White Nationalists" How on earth can you possibly argue that you can create a "White Nation" without some form of genocide as defined by the statutes I showed you? You can't. And anyone on your site who claims that they can, aren't. If you say "no we'll just blast loud music until they leave", that counts. (I actually saw this somewhere.)

You ever heard the saying "can't see the forest for the trees?" I wonder if any of you people stop and consider that maybe by focusing on the trees (ie dealing with annoying old me on this article), you are missing the forest (IE that you guys are playing with DANGEROUS fire over there on SF and some of you are going to suffer destroyed careers or worse for this nonsense.)

Don't use this section as a soapbox. This is the fourth violation of wikipedia policy WP:NOT by you I see here. Your opinions are irrelevant here, because the point I made is that the thread is not notable in context of a large forum (12 posts, 22 votes). Poison sf 19:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• material about international law is added which is irrelevant or at least far from being that notable to have it in the lead section

Absolutely incorrect, because the 'international law' is directly incorporated into US law and given effect legal effect by other US federal statutes also cited. In plain english, it is the law in the US too because the US adopted it as ITS OWN law - it is not merely international law. DO you get it now? it is just as much part of US law as any other.

• "punishable by death" is added, also pretty out of place in a lead section of Stormfront's article, serving little purpose there except making the section more "negative".

You guys seem to have this twisted perception that ethnic cleansing is harmlessly shoving people (even if without harming them) out of a place you all want to live and that it therefore isn't a crime. That is genocide. US law says its a crime. International law says its a crime. There isn't a single square inch - even at sea, I know some of you guys want to build/buy an island - of soil on this planet where you can escape these laws. Even at sea (there are specific statutes that even address that.)

This is not your soap box. Please stop your rants here and discuss solely the notability of "punishable by death". See WP:NOT. Poison sf 19:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Using this wiki article as a soap box is precisely what you do. Stick to the Facts 20:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• the editor who created the section (Stick to the Facts) saw it fit to use distinct concepts - ethnic cleansing as genocide - as completely synonymous and alternate terms, refusing to differentiate between the two.

As I've specifically said, the actual conduct described in the threads fell into both categories. Maybe there is some kind of ethnic cleansing that wouldn't be considered genocide, I don't know - all I was pointing out was that that conduct fell under both definitions. I gave both terms because I thought it was necessary to call it the term that SF referred to it as (ie ethnic cleansing) and also refer to it by the term used in the statutes (genocide). I'm really hoping that you people don't use the term 'ethnic cleansing' because you think it is a clever way to avoid prosecution for genocide - that would be incredibly stupid. It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever what term or terms you use for any kind of conduct - whether or not it is illegal is determined by the CONDUCT ITSELF and whether it satisfies the elements. (not legal advice - see a lawyer - see disclaimer above) Stick to the Facts 16:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As explained in detail in the wikipedia article on ethnic cleansing, it's not synonymous with genocide. Please abstain from introducing misleading descriptions based solely on your POV. If the site is talking about ethnic cleansing, it should be said that it's talking about ethnic cleansing. Everything else is controversial and, if anything, requires quoting some authority. Your personal opinion is not notable. So far in public knowledge, ethnic cleansing and genocide are used as separate concepts. Your personal opinion that ethnic cleansing may or may not qualify as genocide in some court is irrelevant. Poison sf 19:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The wiki article is NOT an authority on ethnic cleansing. It specifically states that the neutrality of the site is in question. You are also cherry picking again - you point to one quote that distinguished between moving populations as only being ethnic cleansing and not genocide. You neglect to mention other parts that say differently.

I provided far more reliable references to the legality of the conduct described in the forums - I cited the actual statues, the very statutes that the judge would use in the court of law. The judge will not care whatever some non-legal authority said genocide is or is not. Stick to the Facts 20:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, Please review WP:NOT and don't use this section as a soapbox. Don't try to adress Stormfront posters or posts rants in here. For that go to Stormfront and try there or create a personal blog. Poison sf 19:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• furthermore, at least one ([1]) of the threads presented in the text as standing solely for "ethnic cleansing or genocide", are in fact more critical of such activities in tone and purpose than anything. Based on first posts that I've checked at least. In any case, they do contain negative references to ethnic cleansing by posters, which is not reflected at all in the article's text.

Absolutely incorrect. I think there was one where the lead post was against it and then a flood of pro-genocide posts followed. Sorry, that counts. Read what ive said about cherry picking. If something is outnumbered 9:1 (or more) it does NOT mean that both views are presented - or if you want to say they are, reflect the relative prevalence. IE if the vatican website has 10000 posts against satan and 5 in favor, you can't say that the vatican website presents posts both negative and favorable to satan. That is misleading and violates wiki policy (see guidelines.) Stick to the Facts 16:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't have a lot of hope for you, but I think other people may see that thread and draw their own conclusions. The topic starter basically said he's against ethnic cleansing and was encouraged by other users, including a moderator, and said he's ok and his views are in line with white nationalism. That's what I see on the first page. I don't see any flood of pro-genocide posts on the first page. I'll continue reading, maybe it's there somewhere. Will take time though as the thread appears to be long. Poison sf 19:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose to restore it back to the version which IMO was fairly presenting it from all sides, for an example see this revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stormfront_%28website%29&oldid=75928733

No. Let me tell you my first impressions on visiting the stormfront site. I thought "wow, these nutjobs want to commit genocide, they are all going to jail." Now what possibly could have given me that idea? Was it the anti-minority rants and how you felt you had to get rid of them? The swastikas, nazi avatars, names, etc? The site is created and intended to invoke those images and it is COMPLETELY dishonest to say otherwise. That info stays. You guys need your heads examined - I hope the prison you end up in gives you treatment. And when I say that, I don't mean treatment to cure you of your racist beliefs - there's no help for that - but you need treatment for this dysfunction that makes you think that it is ok to just trash all of your future career prospects and potentially make you a social pariah. That's what I'm referring to when I say I hope you get help in prison. Do you guys really think you are so clever that you can use euphamisms for things and the courts still won't throw you in the can? Please.... get some help. Stick to the Facts 16:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Your impressions are irrelevant. There's no place for "personal impressions" or personal research here. Also it's not a soapbox. Please review WP:NOT and don't spam here with personal opinions, irrelevant info and threats. This talk section is for discussion of neutrality of the article. By using it as a soap box you're acting disruptively. Poison sf 19:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

relavant passage is:

Permitted content covers a broad range of racialist / racist and far right beliefs, including extreme forms such as the belief in global segregation and "ethnic cleansing" [9], as well as casual and non-political topics.

Which does fairly describe all material, including, but not limited to, that which is currently exclusively mentioned in this part of the article.

If the most controversial and extreme topics discussed on Stormfront need to be covered in the article as a distinct subset, I propose to create "Controversial content" section, possibly as a subsection to the "controversies" section, so that to avoid giving it such an undue weight that it dominates or is exclusively presented in other sections, that are supposed to give fair and balanced description of forum content.

Any comments appreciated. Poison sf 15:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You got em. Stick to the Facts 16:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

RFC request

I'd just like to give some of my general impressions from the arguments presented. First of all, stop committing personal attacks. Secondly, minority viewpoints will always have a difficult time in Wikipedia; that's inescapable. So if you have some community that's advocating for a radical reorganization of society, and you put that community on Wikipedia, it is going to get lambasted. It is very difficult to have NPOV on such articles, but not impossible. My proposed solution would be to include some short criticisms and rebuttals in the lead and then to make a larger section in the body (something like 'Criticism and response') where people offer sourced material (from reliable sources!) criticizing Stormfront and where Stormfront offers a reply. Now, the very important thing to keep in mind: anti-Stormfront views must receive greater coverage, or else we are violating WP:NPOV, which states the following:

Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.

It seems that this mandate has been lost in the shuffle somewhere and abandoned in light of the new edits. Stick to the Facts 20:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So far what you're talking about is not exactly what the problem is all about. Because so far there was little of this sort of material (from reliable sources) disputed. Biased choice of topics and descriptions by editors here (not by any kind of reliable source) is what is being disputed. Poison sf 18:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Because this is an article about Stormfront, however, the organization should be allowed to offer some mild replies to the criticisms presented. But very mild, and if you guys would like me to be the arbiter of what "mild" actually means, I will. Otherwise I suggest finding other editors who might be interested in helping you out. Thank you.UberCryxic 17:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

While you're correct that "popular views" which are anti-stormfront may be given representation, I think you forget that it should be notable views, not views of random wikipedia editors. "Popularity" of anti-Stormfront does not grant a right to be non-neutral, it just means that if such position is more popular, than probably more anti-stormfront comments from reputable sources may be collected and mentioned in the article than otherwise. It doesn't mean that editors are free to push anti-stormfront POV of their own, by biased and unfair presentation. If some notable source mentions some stormfront threads and comments on them, in a negative way, I consider it fair to include in in the article's text. It's a problem though when some editor harvests some material on Stormfront in a biased way, without any kind of neutral criteria why they should be the most notable things to say about Stormfront in the lead section. In particular, mention of non political topics and other topics got dropped and topics hand picked by a lone editor gained undue weight in there. Poison sf 18:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh and I do think that the statement in question should remain in the lead, but it should also be followed by a quick counterpoint from Stormfront. So it would look something like this: Permitted content includes favorable presentation of criminal activity punishable by death under US and international law, including ethnic cleansing/genocide. An informal poll on the Stormfront website titled "How will we curb non-white increase in WN government?" indicated that the top choice of respondents was ethnic cleansing. Stormfront denies these allegations [if they do] ...." and so on. Finish that last sentence basically.UberCryxic 18:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic, any comments are good, but also it would be very good to get some comments on specific points I mentioned in the section above (NPOV violations...) Poison sf 18:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Fundamentally I agree with you that criticism of Stormfront must come from reputable sources and not from the personal dislikes of any Wikipedia editor. To that end, Stick to the Facts has not been a model editor; comments like "You guys need your heads examined" and "I hope the prison you end up in gives you treatment" do not contribute towards the improvement of the article in any way. Ultimately, that is one of Wikipedia's most important goals - to improve articles - not to dish out personal attacks against other editors, no matter how far their viewpoints are from yours.

None of those statements appeared in the article and their presence here does not undermine my neutrality in the article. I can and do keep the two distinct. Stick to the Facts 20:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As I see it now, much of the material critical of Stormfront does come from sources that one could reasonably label as "reliable," even though almost necessarily biased.

Statutes are not biased insofar as they declare the true state of the law. My other cites directly to the existence of forums and threads on the SF site are not biased insofar as they offer direct, conclusive, unbiased truth of my statement that the content exists there. Stick to the Facts 20:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the Stormfront website and the content there is very damning from most perspectives, even confusing opposition to the occurrence of the Holocaust with "historical revisionism." Revisionism is actually an accepted part of the historical literature that aims to offer new perspectives and information on past events and leaders. Questioning the Holocaust in no way qualifies as revisionism because the assertions are rooted in fiction and not fact. It's like completely making up history as you see fit. That's not revisionism as understood in the historical community. This is just one example of what many people would find objectionable about Stormfront. I'm sure they have written about it somewhere, and those anti-Stormfront views should be included.UberCryxic 18:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the current dispute is not even about mentioning or not mentioning some information. For example, I see the problem in undue weight given to threads cherry-picked by 'Stick to the Facts' in the lead section. All those threads were mentioned in other places anyway, but he's pushing it literally all-over the place, like it's the single most notable fact. He's also not relying on any kind of notable source or authority to select these threads, merely on his own negative impression after reading them.

Genocide, by its legal definition (which is the only definition that matters when addressing whether it is illegal or legal) is if not the single most pervasive theme of the site, it is definitely in the top five. White Nationalism? White Nation? These things cannot come about without genocide, at least not the way it is presented on the site. Again, I am matching up the content that is discussed and parsing it through the elements of the crime, and it fits squarely with room to spare. I haven't seen arguments that it does not - if there are, please present them. Stick to the Facts 20:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That it's "definitely" in top five is your personal research so far. Same about other stuff. If you can find third party opinion on this matter, we can include it in the article. Poison sf 21:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to discuss here whether Stormfront is good or bad, whether it's information is moral or immoral and evil. It's after all a matter of personal opinion. Let's keep to the point and discuss how article may be improved in accordance to Wikipedia policies. I do not, for example, in any way dispute inclusion of mention of Holocaust denial/revisionism/whatever threads on Stormfront and inclusion of commentary on this from some notable sources, if such do exist. For example, "X condemns Holocaust denial of Stormfont" or something like that, where X is some notable organization or person. Poison sf 19:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't pass judgment in the article. I state facts, facts that are relevant. I particularly think they are relevant because it is clear that so many people doubt that the activity described there is criminal and warrants the death penalty. If anything that is MORE reason to include the content because it is far more educational than anything else on the article. And it goes right to the very core of what stormfront and white nationalism are about. What could possibly be more relevant? Stick to the Facts 20:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I fundamentally agree with you: Stick to the Facts has not been a good editor and material critical of Stormfront must be reliable. The main problem I have with Stick is his or her wide aberration from Wikipedia's original research policies.

Which research policies are those? I have never done any self research in any form whatsoever. Every cite I've ever produced is of the highest relevance according to the wiki guidelines. How is it not? Stick to the Facts 20:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That aside, the main issue with an article like this is that it could be dominated by a single editor with a highly driven agenda. That could be Stick.....but it could also be you, though at this point I am assuming good faith on behalf of both. The revisionism part of my comment was not meant to discuss the morality or 'righteousness' of Stormfront, but to point out one aspect among many that necessitates a highly critical article (so it was about the article).

Well, revisionism (or denial, if you want to call it so) has its own space on Wikipedia, where it's covered. I didn't personally spend any time editing it and visited those articles long before, but last time I checked, the coverage was pretty negative :). So a reader can read what he wants about revisionism, on WP or elsewhere and do his own conclusions. As I said I've never objected to mention of revisionism/denial in the article, I've used it myself in my edits, I've even used the term denial while doing so, going against my personal preferences. I personally prefer revisionism and consider "denial" a spin and newspeak similar to "war on terrorism" etc, because revisionism already may have negative connotations and, for example, nobody calls revisionists of Stalinism "Stalinism deniers". Nevertheless, I know that Wikipedia policy is to mention the most widely used term, which appears to be Holocaust denial, and I can contend with that. Also, if there's any specific critique of Stormfront as a site allowing revisionism/denial, I support citing it. Though I've never seen a source specifically criticizing Stormfront as a Holocaust denial website, probably because in context of other themes it's usually the least thing to be concerned about LOL. Poison sf 19:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well not to sway too much from our intent here, which is to improve the article, but as historians define the term 'revisionism,' questioning the occurrence of the Holocaust would not qualify at all. I have no opinion on the legitimacy of using "denial," but to call it revisionism is a bit (what am I saying a bit...VERY MUCH) disingenuous to real historical work that forms a key component of understanding history. Edward Said's 1978 book Orientalism, for example, is a landmark opus in revisionist studies. Questioning the occurrence of the Holocaust is little more than espousing a crackpot theory. No serious historian would even bother, nor should they. That was just to clarify.UberCryxic 22:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not certain what material should be excised and what material should remain in the article. The main reason I am reluctant to make this judgment call is that the article could potentially become pro-Stormfront, and that's the last thing Wikipedia wants. It may, however, not be a bad idea to completely rewrite the article. It could take the following structure:

-Lead (says what Stormfront is, talks about some of the controversies, but very briefly, and offers some quick replies)-

-Description of Stormfront (goes into more detail about what Stormfront is and does...could describe its members, organizational apparatus, and so forth)-

-Criticism and response (this has to be the most heavily cited section in the article...must include reliable criticism of Stormfront and some short rebuttals from equally reliable Stormfront sources)-

Another problem that I've alluded to but haven't explicitly mentioned is that criticism of Stormfront specifically often goes hand-in-hand with criticism of policies and views advocated by people and organizations similar to Stormfront (ie. Neo-Nazi groups) generally. So one would not have to find a reliable source that's explicitly critical of Stormfront; if they could find a source that somehow criticizes Stormfront beliefs, then it's perfectly legitimate for inclusion.UberCryxic 19:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

On this general level I agree with you and think that it's fair enough. Don't see anything wrong with what you say. Although, as they say "Devil is in the details"... Poison sf 19:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

My two cents

I tend to agree that the disputed text isn't particularly NPOV, in its current form. For starters-- talking about the site based on six votes in a forum poll just isn't notable, reliable, etc. It sucks that some people on the site support ethnic cleansing, but it's still just six votes (not even six people necessarily).

As I've noted elsewhere in this discussion - the entire theme of the stormfront site is genocide based. The entire concept of a "White Nation" created by ejecting minorities inherently involves genocide under the statutory definition, which is the only definition that counts because I am specifically referring to the legality of it. The nazi themes and avatars etc and the fact that the site is perfuse with discussion of population removal and plans for creating a "white nation" make this the single most pervasive element of the site. it is not merely a few votes on a poll, but if you insist on taking the poll out thats fine. i believe the rest of the content should remain, however. Stick to the Facts 20:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless those people were somehow famous, it's just not notable. So, I'm deleting that sentence. But don't worry-- I suspect we'll have no trouble getting in criticism of the site, even without mentioning the poll.

The other sentence has similar problems. "Permitted content includes favorable presentation of criminal activity punishable by death under US and international law"-- it's clearly argumentative. The logic is going that: 1. This site promotes violence, genocide, etc. 2. These actions are illegal under US and International law. 3. Therefore, the site, its authors, and its supporters are Bad. I suggest that we NOT make this argument-- let's just state what the site stands for, what its critics say about it, and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Obviously, the conclusion most people will draw is that Stormfront is a bad thing.

As the other moderator (UberC.) pointed out, the wiki article on SF should be neutral POV - but that doesn't mean half way between SF views and those of the mainstream. The article is not an extension of their site, nor is it a display booth at a convention. It is not their forum for censoring others. It is an encyclopedia entry that reflects the view of stormfront as seen through the eyes of the world. Stick to the Facts 20:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Lastly, there's room to add lots more criticism of the site in the criticism section-- try to find the most notable sources of criticism you can. Remember, though-- don't ARGUE the site is bad-- just report on the criticism of it. That's my two cents, anyway.

--Alecmconroy 19:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The first thing that hits any reasonable person upon first visiting that site is that these people want to create a white homeland. That necessarily involves genocide and there is no way around it. Why are you countermanding the decision of the other moderator? We need to get more people involved in this, clearly. Stick to the Facts 20:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity - and where do you see any decision by "moderator" in these issues? Are you referring to comments by Brimba? I don't know if he's a moderator (I have no idea how to check and he didn't directly say he's moderator/administrator or however this is called on wikipedia). Assuming that he is, he didn't really make any "decisions", at least I didn't notice. He reminded about 3RR rule and warned about deleting sourced material. However, the dispute is not about deleting, but about fairly presenting facts and claims and balancing their weight. I don't think that anything essential was deleted. Lastly, as far as I know, being an administrator on wikipedia doesn't mean one has an absolute upper hand in resolving disputes. It still has to be done by consensus and by interpreting wikipedia policies... AFAIK. Poison sf 20:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes

So, at the risk of being a little two bold, I went ahead and made some changes, but there are lots more to be made. I removed the mention of the poll-- it's just not notable how six people voted on a site that has 92,000 members. I removed the mention that ethnic cleansing/genocide is illegal-- we don't need to hit people over the head with that. Obviously, murder, genocide, and ethnic cleansing are against the law-- we don't need to linger on that point. For example, if I say "Jack the Ripper murdered women", I don't need to follow that up with "and murder is illegal".

Again, the relevance stems that many people - most, apparently - fail to recognize that not only is it illegal, it is probably the single most heinous criminal offense possible. I think that is reason enough to distinguish it and support the inclusion.

However, the problem is worse - all of that sentence was removed, not just the death penalty part. At least the part mentioning that the threads and content were there should have been retained even by your argument. Even so that argument falls short for the reasons I've given and the illegality should stay. Stick to the Facts 21:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved the claim that stormfront supports violence/ethnic cleansing/genocide to the Controversy section and added a citation needed tag. Ideally, we would like to find some notable source (new site, pundit, scholar, etc) who has made this charge against Stormfront. As it stands, the ethnic cleansing argument is probably original research. You just can't cherry pick a few very controversial comment from a message board with that many members and then apply it to the the site as a whole-- I'm sure I could find some talk threads where there are Wikipedians who support genocide-- but we can't just use those by themselves as evidence that wikipedia supports genocide. What we need here is someone notable who's made the claim that Stormfront, as a whole, tends to support genocide-- something that I presume is probably true.

Yet again, genocide is not a pervasive theme in wiki so culling a few such statements means nothing. Stormfront is full if it and that hits you squarely in the face the moment you surf there. As for original research - I provided the statutes. I gave the text of them. I parsed through the content and demonstrated how the conduct that was advocated on SF fit squarely within the definition. Not one person has come forward to argue that the conduct does NOT fit within the prohibited conduct of the statute. If you insist, I will include the word "arguably" before illegal. I doubt anyone will be able to dispute that. If you are unable to read those few lines of statute and parse the conduct through it to show that it ISN'T genocide, how can that possibly mean that the info is invalid? It means that you are unable to argue that it is invalid. The text stays.

If you want to find an expert to show that my 'personal research' is invalid, that is YOUR burden, not mine. The cites I provided are irrefutable and I haven't heard you or anyone refute them. If you refute only my conclusion, like I said I will add the word 'arguably.' Stick to the Facts 22:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

However, there's room for LOTS more criticism in the article. The site's founded by a Grand Wizard with a history of violence who tried to invade Dominica! I'm sure there's PLENTY of notable people who have a serious problem with the site.

--Alecmconroy 20:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Good job! I fully support the changes you have made. They are very reasonable and professional.UberCryxic 20:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I support as well. Maybe a bit problematic to find really a *plenty* of material, because it's just a website, although very big one for its kind. If one is interested in material of "critical" sort, I think that few posters were charged in countries other than US for racism or other related stuff (maybe also real life hate crimes). Media mentions of that, if such are be found, may be one potential source of "critical" content. Also, it may be notable to mention in a general sense that outside of US Stormfront content is often illegal (hate/discrimination laws, holocaust denial laws etc). Also, some text can be harvested from ADL and SPLC articles (already linked) that, of course, are not proponents of Stormfront, to put it mildly. Poison sf 20:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the changes that you have made are contrary to wiki guidelines. They have taken statements of fact, with outstanding sources (ie statutary citations and direct links to content on the SF cite to establish that the content exists) and has replaced it with a statement that 'critics argue (or suggest)'. The second is inaccurate. Who are 'critics'? Me? Why is taking something factual and proven and replacing it with something far more vague an improvement?

Ill go take a closer look at the cites given. Stick to the Facts 20:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Followup - the edit is not appropriate. The citations given are not citations to what critics say, they are citations that demonstrate the existence of the pro-genocide content on the site. I have a hard time seeing how this is an improvement - ie taking verifiable fact with irrefutable sources and turning into a vague statement with incorrect cites. Stick to the Facts 20:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to take this in a different direction to try to make my point a bit clearer.

Let's assume that wikipedia would allow an article on an organization of people interested in exchanging ideas about raping women. I'm not saying that the content itself would be illegal, but let's say that it just gave hints and strategies about how best to do it, where to hide in the bushes, what kind of dark clothes to wear, etc. Let's say that the site contained imagery and content that unquestionably created an impression that the 'members' were interested in rape - names of famous rapists, icons that evoked such imagery, etc.

What then if someone said, in the into paragraph of the wiki article, that the website gave favorable treatment of conduct that was a felony under the law including... and then gave specific references to such content. The people at the site then tried to get that banned.

What if the forums were about molesting children?

Genocide is more severely punished than either of these two. I find it incomprehensible that anyone would doubt the relevance of such a sentence in these two cases but not for genocide. Stick to the Facts 20:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, assuming this analogy you've presented, if somebody would be writing an article about, say, an uncensored sex-related website which caters to pedophiles and wanted to write "has topics including discussion of molestation, which is punished by ... under US law and international law", I would also argue that the "punished by" part is excessive... this information may be notable in an article covering the crime itself, be it molestation or genocide.

First of all your site is moderated - you have control over the content, and you certainly know it is there now if you didn't before. Second, the more unaware people are of the potential punishment, the more relevant it is to point it out. Don't you think knowing that the described content is actually genocide under the law might make a difference to people when they want to learn more about it?

That's like doing an article about diamonds and never mentioning that it is made of carbon. A lot of people don't know it and it is extremely informative about what diamonds are.

Many people (including you and others here) apparently are unaware that the conduct is genocide. Read the statute again - genocide is NOT limited to violence. It can even be harrassment. Don't you think that information is informative? It goes right to the very core of what SF is. Stick to the Facts 21:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Your absurd claims and personal research is irrlevant. If you find a reputable source claiming the genocide may be harassment, feel free to add that... to genocide article probably. I don't think Stormfront is the right place to include controversy around definitions of genocide. Feel free to include any other information in the genocide's or ethnic cleansing's article and wikify the word genocide or ethnic cleansing. Those interested in further details can follow the link and learn everything. And you can't mix terms based on your personal research. Ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing. Genocide is genocide. You can't say that the site is talking about genocide where it's talking about ethnic cleansing and vice versa. That's imprecise terminology and it doesn't matter what you think about laws. For starters you're not a notable expert, this is "personal research". Poison sf 21:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Refute it. You have not and cannot. The language is not written so that only a genius can understand. It is quite brief. Please explain how the conduct does not fit - don't wave your hand and simply proclaim that it doesn't. Do your homework - this isn't your website where you can make everything you don't like just disappear. Stick to the Facts 22:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Otherwise it amount to trying to make a point, instead of neutrally describing. That's one problem and another is non-neutrally cherry picking the most controversial content and using personal research (instead of either giving a fair and not one-sided description of all content - like "the site allows uncensored discussion of any sexual activity, including some deviant forms that are illegal under most jurisdictions") or at least quoting somebody critical of the site). Poison sf 20:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It is information that few people seem to know and it stays. I'll add 'arguably.' Stick to the Facts 22:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have never used personal research of any kind. I always thoroughly support my information with reputable and relevant sources. As for cherry picking content, you were the one who wanted to characterize a genocide thread as anti-genocide merely because the first post was against it, and was followed by numerous others that were. Stick to the Facts 21:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The first post in there was against ethnic cleansing(!) (genocide wasn't addressed). Few others that followed were as well. The general tone on the first page was that of support to the thread starter. Poison sf 21:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing as used in those threads is genocide. You are simply inventing a euphamism. If the feds come knocking on your door and find firearms they are taking you with them, no matter what you call them. Stick to the Facts 22:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If these guys aren't moderators then I am just putting back the content. It is so well cited that no one can reasonably refute the factual accuracy. Please refer to wiki guidelines for deleting cited content and follow them. If you do not follow the guidelines I will continue to restore it until I am presented with arguments not to. The arguments presented so far can be summarized as:

1) improper because ive done personal research - clearly untrue, most reliable of sources - direct cites to statues and appearance of content on the site

2) improper because of different definition of 'genocide' in wiki article - irrelevant because it is not a legal authority - the legal definition is the only one that matters for determining legality. Also failed to note that the article had been flagged as non-neutral and had many other references contradicting it

3) improper because non-NPOV. That is a difference of opinion and your's doesn't win just because it differs from mine.

4) improper because singles out a minor characteristic of the SF website - untrue because genocide (as defined by law) is pervasive throughout the site - please point out a strategy for creating a White Nation that doesn't involve it. Even then, that alone will not refute the argument unless you demonstrate that a substantial percentage of means don't involve genocide.

5) Pointed to a thread where the OP was anti genocide and the others were predominantly pro-genocide - even if you are right about the one thread (and you are not) it does not nullify the others. And even that thread expresses anti-genocide as a minority view. Stick to the Facts 21:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's make something very clear here: it is not sufficient to logically derive from some Stormfront material that Stormfront itself is advocating for genocide. What one could do is to say something like, "The website is also controversial because of the heated rhetoric of certain members, some of which call for genocide, etc." and so on.

I'll add the word 'arguably' before the favorable treatment of - that should put everyone's concerns to rest. No more "personal research." If you really doubt the legality go get a lawyer for your own edification. Stick to the Facts 22:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll add 'arguably.' Stick to the Facts 22:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I also have a question: is Stormfront just a website/forum or also an organization with a clearly defined hierarchy? I think this is important in addressing Stick's concerns because saying "Stormfront wants genocide" or something to that effect means the Stormfront community has put its trust into a representative making those kinds of statements.UberCryxic 21:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I never attributed any such thing to any individual or organization. I said 'the forums contain favorable treatment of..." or words to that effect. It is just one little sentence, I suggest that you actually read it before making judgments on it. It goes back in. Stick to the Facts 22:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well in order to say that the forums contain favorable treatment of a topic like genocide, you would need a reputable source. You cannot, or should not, yourself go on Stormfront and make an analysis about it because then you are projecting your views onto the article. That way this article will never be even remotely close to NPOV. Clearly provide sources here (that is, list them out right now right here) that state Stormfront supports genocide, or else drop the claim. Again, a more appropriate thing to do would be to say that some members of Stormfront advocate for things like that since that's easily verifiable.UberCryxic 22:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll add arguably before the favorable treatment. Stick to the Facts 22:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

One more thing regarding this comment: "I have never used personal research of any kind." It actually appears to me that you have. Much of the article is written from your interpretation of Stormfront sources or from your interpretation of random blogs you found that were anti-Stormfront. I realize it is difficult to find too many reliable sources for this subject, but I don't think a good job has been done so far.UberCryxic 22:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have stated objectively what the forum says. I'll add the word 'arguably' to the 'favorable treatment'. Seriously tho - to say that phrases like "we should look into adopting methods in Bosnia to the US" or "this is a great way to pay back all those Mexicans" - to say that those are not 'favorable' is outrageous. That is like calling into question that the Vatican likes Jesus. Stick to the Facts 22:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but...you're not supposed to be doing that. You're suppoing to be making objective statements about what reputable sources say regarding the forum. That's my whole point; you're not doing that.UberCryxic 23:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to Stick

"The citations given are not citations to what critics say, they are citations that demonstrate the existence of the pro-genocide content on the site. "

You're correct that right now the citations given just point to evidence that could support the claim that members of Stormfront are pro-genocide. Ideally, we would have not just have a few pieces of evidence that could be used to support an argument-- we would be able to argue "critics claim Stormfront encourages genocide" and then reference a notable critic who has studied the issue and made that argument.

My statements are objectively true - I will add 'arguably' before 'favorable treatment'. Are you going to deny that the treatment is arguably favorable? Stick to the Facts 22:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You call my change "improperly cited", and you're right-- it IS improperly cited and someone could just delete the whole pro-genocide argument all together because we don't have a cite for a notable critic making this allegation.

Absolutely unacceptable. You took somethign well sourced and turned it into something meaningless - don't blame me for that or use it as an excuse to scrap it - that's what you really wanted all along. The word arguably will take care of all of your concerns. Stick to the Facts 22:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

But since I tend to believe that the allegation is, at least in part, true, I figured it would be better to leave the sentence in place and encourage people to provide a better citation.

Nope, I'll take care of this. Stick to the Facts 22:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Basically, here are our options in this situation.

1. We could say or imply "Stormfront endorses pro-genocide statements" and then point to forum posts to back up that argument. The problem is, this is original research. Maybe there are 10 anti-genocide statements for ever pro-genocide statement. Maybe they have some sort of free-speech policy where they allow all kinds of statments on their site. From what I've seen so far, there's no clear evidence that Stormfront or its founder endorses genocide. It wouldn't shock me to find out they do, but so far, I haven't seen it. Just because they haven't deleted some statements on their forum doesn't make them genocidal.

This is a gross mischaracterization of what I've done. The words arguably will take care of all your problems.

2. We could say "There are posts on Stormfront that are pro-genocide". But there are 92,000 members! Looking at single isolated posts tells me nothing about Stormfront itself. Simply saying "There are posts on the forum that are ___" isn't notable on a Stormfront article-- a few isolated posts tell me nothing about the site as a whole. It would be like me writing an article on the State of Texas on the basis of interviewing a half-dozen people. The statement that "there are a few posts that say X" is true and verifiable, but it's not notable unless it somehow represents the forum as a whole.

I cited more than a few. I can cite then all day, but I've never heard of anyone being required to provide hundreds of sources to back up an assertion that something 'contains' something. Stick to the Facts 22:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

3. We could say "Critics claim Stormfront is pro-genocide". This is certainly notable. This is certainly true. And, I think this has real potential to be verifiable as well. But, the downside is, as of this moment, there's no good cite for it that I've found.

Unaccaceptable. This is far less objective than what I had originally. Stick to the Facts 22:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

4. We could simply say nothing at all about genocide. This is probably the most "legally, by the book" appropriate. But, since I think most people would agree that Stormfront's audience probably is a pro-racial violence (potentially even the founder would admit that view). Obviously, critics DO claim stormfront supports genocide, since you are one such critic. So, I'm willing to error on the side of #3-- including the as-yet-uncited "critic say", rather than just deleting it outright.

Unacceptable. That's what you wanted all along and you will not get it. Stick to the Facts 22:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Stick-- it's absolutely NOT what I want. It's not even what I did. I want to do a quick websearch, find lots of people criticizing Stormfront for genocidal statements, and move on to articles I care about more. But since we're having trouble doing that, we have a more complex situation.

If we wanted to a sticklers for policy about this, then your claim that Stormfront is genocidal is absolutely, positively, the very definition of original research. "Original Research" doesn't mean "false original research" or "poorly done original research" or "original research that has no evidence whatsoever"-- it means original research, which may well be accurate, correct, and well-supported by evidence. But right now, you can't cite anyone on the planet other than yourself who believes Stormfront is guilty of encouraging genocide-- so it's still original research. When the owner is indicted, then it won't be original research. When a news source reports on your claim, then it won't be original anymore. When a scholar writes about the link, then we don't have a problem anymore, and I can go back to fixing the article I was working on before I saw the RFC, and we can all be happy.

Until we find such a source, however, we can error on the side of thoroughness or we can error on the side of No Original Research. In situations like these, I usually tend only to delete original research if I strongly believe it's an extreme minority view, or one that is pretty illogical, a "hard sell", or otherwise especially controversial. Since I think most people would accept "Critics argue that the site promotes violence or even genocide" is true (even the people who frequent the site would probably accept that's true), then I'm inclined to let it stand.

Other people have a more strict devotion to No Original Research, and they tend to delete anything that's not proved in a reputable peer-reviewed sort of publication. IF you told them the sky is blue but couldn't find a citation, they'd delete it until you could find such a cite.

What needs to happen now is a couple of things. On the genocide issue-- you need to find a cite where someone talks about genocide and Stormfront. Or you need to contact scholars and maintainers of anti-hate websites, tell them about your conclusions, and get them to add that to their own coverage of Stormfront. Or you should alert the media and/or the authorities to the promotion of genocide on Stormfront, and get them to take action on it, so that we can then cite that action. Or you could create a site yourself that extensively details the genocidal aspects of Stormfront, and work on get that site sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in Wikipedia.

The other thing that needs to happen is there should be more criticism of Stormfront included in the article-- but highly verfifiable criticism. For example-- the creator was trying to invade a carribean island and set up a white supremacist nation! THat's certainly worth a mention-- and yet, it's not in this article anywhere.

--Alecmconroy 23:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

--

"an organization of people interested in exchanging ideas about raping women." "What if the forums were about molesting children?"

Stick, you're running into trouble here. I argue, and I know it's hard to do this, but I would argue we should divorce ourselves as much as possible from our own emotional reactions to the article's subject matter. In an ideal world, we would edit an article about a pro-rape organization or a pro-molestation organization in the same way we would edit an article on the red cross or the humane society-- by reporting on the controversy where it exists, but not by becoming advocates ourselves.

I Stick to the Facts. Get the name? Nothing I put in that article will be factually inadequate or emotionally charged. I will include the word 'arguably'. If you want to talk about 'objectivity', take a close look at the MLK section. I haven't seen a word of criticism about that. Ironic. Stick to the Facts 22:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

When you ask questions about a pro-rape or pr-molestation organizations, you're somehow implying that those are so repugnant, surely we would treat them differently than we're treating the white supremacists. But for me, they're all repugnant. But, if I'm going to be a good editor, I need to step back from that, and try to construct an article that neither supports nor condemns, neither persecutes nor extolls. I take comfort in knowing that, on average, Idon't need to draw moral conclusions for the reader-- The Truth will do that.

You find them repugnant? I meant only to show that they were criminal acts. Funny that you leapt to that implication. Who is passing judgment? Stick to the Facts 22:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm definitely anti-rape and anti-molestation and anti-racism. So... I guess I'm passing judgement. I can only say that when we're not on the talk pages, I will try my best to separate my editing behavior from my emotional judgements. --Alecmconroy 23:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

--

"The first thing that hits any reasonable person upon first visiting that site is that these people want to create a white homeland. That necessarily involves genocide and there is no way around it."

Well, that is a slightly different use of the term genocide than the one I'm used to. It seems to me, therefore, that the BEST description of such a stance would be "White nationalism". If you feel "White nationalism" inherently implies genocide, under the legal definition of genocide, that is a argument best left to White nationalism. I think you have an uphill battle there, because I don't think the two are NECESSARILY the same thing (although, admittedly, most proponents of a White Nation probably do look at genocide as the simplest way to accomplish such an end).

What I have said is limited ONLY to the legal definition of genocide because that's the one the judge is going to use when he evaluates the illegality, which is the only thing the sentence is concerned with. No other definition is appropriate. Stick to the Facts 22:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

And when the makers of Stormfront are on trial for accessory to genocide, then we'll have no trouble getting into the legal definition. In the mean time, however, the connection between Stormfront and genocide seems QUITE tenuous-- to the point of being original research. --Alecmconroy 23:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

--Alecmconroy 22:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Very appropriate reply Alec. I fully endorse it. The main problem facing us is that there are not too many sources that one could reasonably call "reliable" when dealing with this website. Anyway, yes we should distance ourselves from the morality of the subject and just try and be good Wikipedia editors. We're not law enforcement; we have a different role here, and right now it has not been executed too well.UberCryxic 22:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Stick, you cannot say to people, with definitive conviction, what will and will not go into a Wikipedia article. That appears like ownership to me. In fact, at this point I am convinced that's what's going on. Please only provide interpretive information about the forum contained in reputable sources, but do not add that kind of information from analyzing the forum itself.UberCryxic 23:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Stick to the Facts, since somebody (I assume you) accused me of spam on the talk page for "adding spam links" - I assume the link to the donation page, I've to remind you, that the reason the link was added because you were crippling the article removing everything where lack of a cite was giving you an excuse to do so. So you can't complain that I added the link (there was none, initially), to protect that passage from frivolous removal by you. Now that the link is there, you accuse me of spam. When it wasn't, you were deleting it as uncited. Funny tactic, LOL, but it's transparent and won't work. Poison sf 07:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit War

Stickto, if my count is accurate, you've reverted the text three times today. In keeping with the Three revert rule, please don't just re-revert it again. By all means, keep discussing and try to convince us (or other new people who come to the article) that the disputed text should be included, but don't just keep adding it back it.

I am repairing vandalism. Stick to the Facts 00:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I should say-- you're misusing the term vandalism. On Wikipediavandalism refers to a very specific sort of defacement--something that's random, irrelevant, or so completely obviously a bad-faith edit that it could never be construed as a serious edit. No such recent edits qualify as vandalism in this sense.

--Alecmconroy 00:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Check the rules on vandalism again. It includes clearing blocks of text. Stick to the Facts 00:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I made a lengthy reply but for some reason it didn't go through... Shucks. It was pretty much the same stuff anyway. Please cease vandalism. Thank you. Stick to the Facts 00:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Forced to revert again. All three users have been given first warning for vandalism. Stick to the Facts 00:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You're trying to tell me I'm doing original research even though i provide what is it, 8 cites? 10? And then this is what YOU put in?

"Stomrfront is a highly controversial site. Many sources consider it to be a hate group, and a number of internet content filters prevent access to it accordingly. Critics accuse the site of promoting racism and encouraging violence.[citation needed]"

without a cite? Looks like someone has an agenda. Stick to the Facts 00:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You have some nerve dude.UberCryxic 00:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You have absolutely no idea how much nerve I have. Stick to the Facts 00:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Forced to restore vandalism again. Second warning issed to UberCryxic. Stick to the Facts 00:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Blanking text can be vandalism, but not if there's been a full discussion of the motivations for such blanking. The critical part of the vandalism policy is this: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia."

Your repeated reversions are now well in violation of the three revert rule. I'm very hesitant to request you be blocked, but, you limit our options. I'm going assume for the moment that you're just acting under the incorrect assumption that our edits have been vandalism. Now that you know they are not, I'd ask that you undo your revert/cease reverting in the future. --Alecmconroy 00:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

He's misusing the term vandalism not for the first time. It's a consistent pattern. I've already told him that's against definition of vandalism and against the rules, but, apparently, that didn't help (See, for example, the talk section above "3RR violation"). Poison sf 07:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

We are not supposed to assume too much here, and whatever we do assume should be good in nature, but I think at this point it's almost unquestionable that Stick is consciously and intentionally misusing the term "vandalism" to unfairly claim the moral high ground.UberCryxic 16:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sept 17, 2006

Some new changes - removed 'prominent' from description of Stormfront in first sentence - it is an indefinite term. Prominent compared to what? Please try to find a more informational descriptor, such as '3rd best hate cite according to the NYT' etc.

Also included some information about forum content followed by the legal definition of genocide. No conclusions or connections between the two are stated. This is partly in response to the sentence stating that SF claims to prohibit promotion of illegal activities - I think this deserves some rebuttal.

Please do not remove cited material unless you have better cites or arguments to back up removing it or you will be reported for vandalism. Don't make such unsupported changes until they have been discussed. Stick to the Facts 02:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I have mostly reverted your changes, but I did keep out the word "prominent." I think you're right: it is dangerous to use that term unless some context is specified. On the other hand, the changes you made were addressed before: you cannot create a whole paragraph on a few threads in Stormfront as they are not indicative of the entire forum. And if you wanted to, you should probably do so in the body anyway, not the lead.UberCryxic 02:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the new version? Also please explain your refusal to acknowledge my argument that the main and openly declared theme of SF is a white nation and many (actually most, or even all) of the means addressed on the site specifically address removal by force etc, clearly what is covered in the legal definition.

I am not aware of any wikipedia policy that suggests that in order to establish something one must provide dozens, hundreds, or thousands of examples, especially something as pervasive on SF as the genocidal theme.

Tell you what. Give me a number. How many cites will it take before you'll agree I've supplied enough? 100? 1000? I'll get them. Do you want the entire article to be covered in little blue numbers? Stick to the Facts 03:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

PS - this content belongs in the first paragraph because it is a rebuttal to the statement that SF claims not to permit advocating or suggesting illegal content. That statement cannot stand alone without a rebuttal because it is arguably untrue. Just because it is a stated policy does not mean that it is a policy if it can be demonstrated that it is not followed.

I am going to have to take this to the next step because you have obviously decided to revert without discussion or willingness to compromise. "Uber", your edits appear to be quite slanted. You don't seem concerned about the MLK content, or the appeal for donations.

From now on I will have to insist that you provide valid reasoning to erase my content - just TYPING a reason (ie original research) without explaining it is not good enough. The reason is not valid - there are 11 cites. You have never disputed the validity of any of them. You don't appear to be willing to compromise. Stick to the Facts 03:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

From what I can gage about SF, most of their ideologues do want a white-only nation. However, I'm not certain that this necessarily implies genocide. That's my main objection against your edits and hence my label of "original research."UberCryxic 03:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't said that they talk about genocide. I pointed out what they say, then I gave some of the acts that are genocide by us and international law with cites to the statutes. There are other things that qualify as genocide but I left them out for the sake of brevity. I can include the full text, which isn't very long, but I don't think that is necessary.

In short, no conclusions are drawn by me. I state only facts and I have 11 cites to excellent sources to back them up. I welcome you do go through the site and cull some different approaches to 'ethnic cleansing' or means to achieve a white nation that wouldn't be genocide - not that I'm saying the conduct I pointed out is....

I should also note that the statement about the website expressly prohibiting advocating or suggesting illegal conduct (don't remember exact words) needs a rebuttal. And I'm not saying that anything suggested or advocated is illegal, I'm just stating the facts.

Of course, taking that part about the website prohibiting the illegal content isn't going to make me inclined to leave the genocide sentence out, because it is still one of the most pervasive themes of the site, if not THE most pervasive theme. It is pretty hard for me to imagine a way to achieve a white nation other than by genocide but I'll interested to see what you come up with. Stick to the Facts 05:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Then tell me how many references it will take to satisfy you and I will get them, although I have never heard of anyone having to produce so many. I can suggest a better way - we state that the 'organization' or forum etc is pro white nation (which isn't in dispute I think), then I give some ways they want to achieve it that are genocide, and you cite some examples that are not genocide. That way it can be more balanced. Sound good?

Took out some uncited content - looks like there was a bit of original research. Please provide cites. Also put back the neutrality dispute tag - this one is more appropriate - it is used when there is an ongoing debate, as is clearly happening here. Stick to the Facts 03:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

How about this as a compromise? Something like this: Stormfront is a White Nationalist website. Threads in the forums address a variety of means for achieving a White Nation including XYZABC.

We can both contribute to the different ways of achieving it that have been put forth. You find some you want presented, and I'll find some. Then to rebut the comment about prohibiting advocating or suggesting illegal content I'll address the statutary cites but won't draw any conclusions about illegality. Does that sound fair? I'm totally willing to do that. Stick to the Facts 03:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is neutral and should address every one of the concerns that you've addressed. If you object to any part of it, please state your reasoning here. If you feel it is necessary to change because of non-NPOV then just change whatever you think is non-neutral about it but do not remove the cites or any facts. Stick to the Facts 04:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If I deleted the image it was unintentional. There has been a lot of random 'violence' to the article recently and it was probably done by then, or could have been done by me in trying to repair it.

I did remove this on purpose tho: "Stormfront White Nationalist Community is a white nationalist, white pride, and white supremacist Internet forum." We have been sticklers for cited facts recently - ie having to provide a cite if stating that 'the sky is blue.' Stick to the Facts 04:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed donations content. Here is the relevant wiki policy.

Advertisements masquerading as articles Advertisements posted on Wikipedia can be dealt with by listing them on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. On some occasions, the content can be removed temporarily on the basis of a suspected copyright violation, since the text is often copied from another website and posted anonymously. When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article can often be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view.

See the last sentence of this - I think this is what is called for here.

I don't really think that you can say that it applies to ads but not for outright donations of cash - particularly since SF is not a non-profit organization. Stick to the Facts 05:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Storm,

1. Don't just add content back in without a consensus to do so. Do not call edits you disagree with vandalism. If you disagree with the people here, there are a number of things you can do. You may continue to discuss the situation on the talk page with the idea of convincing others. You may request mediation. Or you may request that the Arbitration Committee, the ultimate authority on Wikipedia, order that your changes be implemented. What you absolutely shouldn't do is just add the content back in again forever. That will just get you blocked. So, let's not do that. I hate to be a heavy about this, but this part really isn't debatable. You talk first, you edit later. You can do that, and things will be good. You can not do it, and you'll get blocked. And I _despise_ being involved in edit wars and blocks-- they're the wikipedia equivalent of violence. So, please, please-- don't just add controversial stuff in repeatively until we've reached a consensus to do so.

I did not add the content back in. It has had a serious overhaul, taking into consideration everyone's concerns. Please address what is wrong with it now. I use the term vandalism as it is defined by wikipedia, if you don't like the definition I recommend you lobby for a change in definition.

I am more than willing to talk about it but you guys are acting in concert and are trigger happy. Do not deny that UberCryxic has left messages on your talk page to ask you to revert - I've seen them. This in itself is a violation of wiki guidelines and I haven't even called you guys out on that.

You say I shouldn't add the content back in - but how is that worse than you guys taking it out? Please explain that to me. You cannot discredit any of the sources, you can't identify a word of non neutral content, there isn't an iota of original research. No conclusions are drawn.

Funny you mention talk first edit later - that is exactly what I did. I thoroughly explained the change I was going to implement before I did it. Go back and review the log. None of you, on the other hand, have done that.

I have not done a single revert today. Other people have. I'm sure that's why Brimba and you got called in because Uber has 2 or maybe three.

I am not going to get blocked. If you keep reverting and/or vandalizing I am going to keep tagging.

Please explain how including facts supported with 11 cites, with no conclusions drawn, if violence to the site, but scrapping the same text with no valid explanation is not. I don't think you are objective.Stick to the Facts 05:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

2. You keep mentioning the MLK section. I'm totally all ears for what you think is wrong with it. I have no clue what's wrong with it, but as I said, these things are hard to see sometimes without hearing the full debate. I by no means think this article is perfect-- there is lots of room for improvement. I've spent a good bit of time trying to guess what you think is wrong with it, but I don't know. Is it that you feel that even repeating the crazy things Stormfront says about Dr. King somehow disparages him? My own take is that it doesn't do that at all-- their insults against him don't make me (or anyone else in the mainstream world) think less of Dr. King-- they just make us think less of Stormfront. But, as I said, do expand on your objections to this section.

I haven't turned to that yet. I just find it extremely curious that the only thing you seem willing to police is the genocide sentence. Is that the most inappropriate thing in this article? In case you didn't know UberCryxic contacted an admin friend of his (a form of forum shopping that is also exressly prohibited) - he asked this admin to block me for 3 reverts without going through the usual process, and then he asked his opinion on the genocide sentence. The admin said that he wasn't so sure it wasn't appropriate - and that was in its ORIGINAL form, not the one I've changed it to.Stick to the Facts 05:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

But Stick-- don't accuse me of ignoring them problems with the MLK section if you won't even tell me what's wrong with that section. lol. Don't blame Uber for your getting the 24 hour block-- you were warned, ya did it anyway, you get blocked. It's a straightforward thing. --Alecmconroy 07:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't get warned on my talk page nor through an admin - Uber went straight to an admin friend of his without putting it up for admin review like everyone else - if you ask me that is a gross violation of policy (forum shopping among others) and seriously compromises impartiality - he basically chose the admin he wanted who would do what he asked. So I'm not sure I agree with you there, not that it matters. Stick to the Facts 07:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

3. Similar situation with your complaint about the donation solicitation. What exactly is wrong with Stormfront soliciting donations? That's what non-profits do. The Red Cross, the Human Society, and every political party in the world also solicit donations. Obviously, I'm missing something. Is it that they asked for donations in some controversial way? or something else?

I provided wiki guidelines against articles that read like advertisements. If you contest that an outright appeal for donations is somehow not as bad as an advertisement then please state a case for it. SF is not a non profit organization. I don't think it would be appropriate for Pepsi to ask for handouts, for itself, do you? Stick to the Facts 05:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You're also missing that stormfront is NOT a non-profit. Gimme a break! Stick to the Facts 07:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

4. You say " Tell you what. Give me a number. How many cites will it take before you'll agree I've supplied enough? 100? 1000? I'll get them.". My own opinion is that you only need a single, solitary cite-- but a GOOD cite. Just one CNN story talking about genocide and stormfront. Just one AP wire article about the site's propensity to endorse genocide. And certainly just one indictment in a court of law in which the Stormfront organizers are charged with genocide. I think just one citation from a major pundit, scholar, or hate group expert would work as well.

I've got lots of them. First - if you insist that cites to the SF website are inappropriate, then why did you just put one up yourself for the part about Don Black? Seems curious to me.... Furthermore, when you use a cite directly to a website to demonstrate that it says what you say it says, that is DIRECT evidence. Quite different from the way you used your SF cite. The admin also said that to UberCryxic, or words to that effect. In other words, I don't need an expert to say what the SF says - SF says it loud and clear.

Right now, what your citing in your citations isn't this. You don't have any citations where people say "I believe Stormfront, as a site, is guilty of supporting genocide.". You have cites that show Stormfront supports white nationalism, cites that show that genocide is illegal, and cites that can be used to argue white nationalism is inherently genocidal. But, you know, that's really not the same thing-- it's exactly what's addressed in Original Research Policy - Synthesis of Published Material-- taking several different pieces of evidence and using them to construct your own argument.

I've just explained why it is not necessary for me to do that, and I'm curious why you aren't taking issue of the many other occurences of that kind of info in the site. I hereby ask you to police other parts of the article and use the same criteria. Will you do it? If no, is there a particular reason why not? Stick to the Facts 05:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

5. Why did you delete the claim that the site's founder is a racist and a former KKK grand wizard? You say because it's uncited-- but do you actually disagree with the statements made in that sentence? If you actually think those things aren't true, then we should talk about it. IF you think those things ARE true but uncited-- you should add a cite yourself. Since I think you do believe the sentence is true, I worry you just deleted it to be, for lack of a better term, a tad ornery. In any case, the way we usually deal with uncited text is to 1) cite them if possible, 2) discuss them if a cite can't be found, and 3) delete them if they remain disputed and no cite is forthcoming. In any case, I've added that sentence back in, and added a cite for it.

You are the stickler for original research not me. There is no cite for it. You said I have to cite 'the sky is blue'.

I'm putting the genocide back in and I'm putting everyone on notice that they will be reported for vandalism if they take it out without offering an alternative. Again - I am not insisting on leaving it for ever - but I will not leave it out without a reason to. All of your reasons are entirely in conflict with everything else you've been doing. Why is that? Stick to the Facts 05:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

--Alecmconroy 05:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Posted to User_talk:Alecmconroy

Your reference to Don Black is from the Stormfront website. This is not an acceptable cite. Please find a better cite or remove the sentence. I know how important good sources are to you.

Is this the only thing in the article that you think needs fixing right now? Nothing else strikes you as non-NPOV? Stick to the Facts 05:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Stick, as I've explained, it's not appropriate for you to delete parts of the article just for the sake of their being uncited. Instead, we should work to cite them. If the cite I provided is unacceptable to you, find a better one that says the same thing. If you are going to remove something instead of citing it, you should explain why you think the disputed text is false. If you think it's true but just uncited-- you should find a cite for it yourself, not delete it.

I think that is pretty ironic in light of what's going on here. I keep getting content delted that has the absolute best kind of sources - direct cites to the statutes, and direct cites to where it says 'xyz' to support a statement that SF says 'xyz'. Can't get bettern than direct proof.

"If the cite I provided is unacceptable to you, find a better one that says the same thing. If you are going to remove something instead of citing it, you should explain why you think the disputed text is false." I nearly missed this bit because I thought I was saying it. How can you possibly say this out of one corner of your mouth while condoning my parts being scrapped? That does not make sense to me, can you explain it? Stick to the Facts 06:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As I've said-- I see a lot of problems with the current article still. There's room for more critcism. It doesn't talk about the criminal history of its founder, for example. A number of the sections could still be expanded. So no, I don't feel the article is perfect as is, and I'm perfectly content to leave the alerts up at the top of the article until the article stabilizes and improves.

--Alecmconroy 05:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you turn your attention on those for a while to spread your focus a bit? If you lean on only one thing you only increase the lack of neutrality. If you want to balance or reduce the dissent, then spread it around evenly. Stick to the Facts 06:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Rephrased the 'genocide' sentence for review and discussion. Also deleted some unsupported info - please supply cite. Stick to the Facts 05:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Which info was it that was unsupported and in need of a cite? --Alecmconroy 06:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, I'll go take it out now. Basically any sentence you see in the article that is unsupported has to come out by your criteria. Stick to the Facts 06:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What about these? Do these have to come out?

Stormfront White Nationalist Community is a white nationalist, white pride, and white supremacist Internet forum. Stormfront's motto is "White Pride World Wide."

There is no cite.

What about the logo itself? I don't see a cite for that.

I provided 11 cites and you claim it isn't good enough. "Uber" said 4 or 5 cites to threads wasn't a good enough sample. How many is? There is DIRECT EVIDENCE of the content of the site - you claim I can't cite to it.

I'm going to have to request mediation, that should take care of it. Stick to the Facts 06:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you think any of those things are untrue? If not, then don't delete them, just cite them. That's the standard I'm using. I legitimately searched for a source to talk about Stormfront itself or its owner themselves encouraging genocide, and I haven't found it, and that's why this whole debate is going on. I also haven't been able to find anyone (aside from you) accusing Stormfront and its owner of supporting genocide-- and I've looked a lot. In contrast, I expect you could find a source that Stormfront is white nationalist in less five seconds. --Alecmconroy 06:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You are the one who says that I have to provide a cite to a newspaper or some other legitimate authority to restate exactly what I can prove that the SF shows. Doing it your way is actually worse because there is a middleman between the truth (IE what it actually says on the site) and the content in this article. I also cannot figure out why you say I have to cite, not delete, uncited content, but then you argue that my content, with *11* cites, must come out. This makes no sense. Furthermore, the way it is written does not say that the site encourages genocide. It says that it contains content XYZ. No genocide mentioned. Then I give a cite and show what the legal definition is. I don't draw a conclusion. Of course no one is going to come out and say that the site encourages genocide! That doesn't mean that the facts don't speak for themselves - but even so I'm not drawing conclusions.

But, see-- it a specific thread DOESN'T reflect on the site as a whole, then it's not notable. Suppose five people on the site debate who they want to win on American Idol. I can't then add a sentence "The site contains discussions of American Idol" to the Wikipedia article. Sure-- it's technically true, but five people comment on American Idol just isn't notable. The trick is to talk about the site as a whole. If it really is just a few isolated threads, then it's not relevant to the discussion of the site as a whole. --Alecmconroy 07:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again - the themes of genocide and White Nation are EVERYWHERE. I said I will find 10000 cites if I have to and this article will be a sea of blue numbers. This is perhaps the SINGLE most pervasive theme on the site, it is not a thread on american idol. I have a hard time understanding why you don't get this. Tell you what - you state exactly what you think I need to prove to get the message across. And don't say I need an affadavit from Don Black - I think a large part of my point here is that MANY people dont' know these acts are genocide and that's particularly why they belong in. Even if he knows, do you really think he'd admit it?

I think a lot of this comes down to some confusion by some people about what a good cite is - some people think it is apparently ok to cite SF for some facts, but for some reason it isn't a good source to describe exactly what the site itself actually says. This is incorrect. I have to repeat this very clearly - it doesn't matter at all if the owner says 'no genocide talk on our site' - if the content is there, the content is there, QED. Stick to the Facts 06:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe a mediator or someone else would have better luck explaining the thought process here-- I think I'm just repeating myself. Certainly, you can definitely prove that some specific users have posted pro-ethnic cleansing comments. So, if there were an article just on one of those users, obviously, that would be a valid citation. The problem is-- this isn't an article on any of those specific users, it's about the website itself as a whole. If 1, or 10, or even 100 users out of 100,000 make a commment, that doesn't necessarily prove anything about the website itself. What you need here is a reliable source (journalist, scholar, etc) of some sort to go through the website as a whole and report on its content as a whole. --Alecmconroy 07:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ya - we definitely need someone here to explain the thought process. "uber" tried to engage in some forum selection by going directly to an admin friend of his and that guy said he actually wasn't so sure there was anything wrong with the OLD version. Stick to the Facts 07:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Clearly this site can't stay stable for half an hour without someone vandalizing it. I'm going to look into having it marked for deletion - I am not so sure it qualifies as notable anyway. Stick to the Facts 06:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we don't delete things because they get vandalized-- we just block the vandals. As for notability-- I admit it's on the less-notable side as far as articles go, but it's been mentioned in new sources, so I expect it would survive a motion for deletion. But if you feel strongly it's not notable enough to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia, you could always mark it and see what happens. --Alecmconroy 07:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There are 100 other things you can focus on here that are eggregious and you seem to have tunnel vision for this only. Either get involved in a balanced way or please just move on. If you just hammer on one thing for one side that isn't fair if there are many other issues on the other side being neglected. Like I said - it is like a judge only hearing objections from one side but not the other - and even if he makes all the right calls, the outcome is extremely slanted. Not that you are a judge, your opinion has no more weight or merit than mine. Stick to the Facts 07:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You're getting another vandalism tag - and I'm almost positive you're out of reverts, probably over already. You say that I can't delete content that isn't even cited because I could cite it, or to wait until it is discussed, yet you have a double standard when it comes to my content - you just scrap it even though it has 11 cites. Hypocrite? Stick to the Facts 07:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You realize that if I ask for a mediation I'm going to push for the original wording and I'll probably get it. Look at Uber's talk page - the admin said that citing the content on the SF forums was appropriate to prove the statement in the article. Stick to the Facts 08:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Before I changed the wording, you said you had a problem with the 'original research' - ie that I said it was illegal was my own research. I changed it. No more conclusory statements. Fact after cited fact after cited fact, no subjectivity period. Please explain to me what your problem is with it now, and please explain it in such a way that it would apply to every other phrase and word on this cite. Not enough cites? Then take out every last uncited word. Original research? Then all the 'critics say' stuff comes out. Do not apply double standards. If you delete my sentence again, do the same thing with every other scrap of 'info' in the entire article. Stick to the Facts 08:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think mediation is in order here

What is this?

"Stick to the Facts has now been banned for 24 hours. Can you undo his latest revert so I don't go over three please? Thank you! I will ask another person to look at our situation here and hopefully reach a lasting compromise. Again, thanks for your help in this process.UberCryxic 00:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)"

and then this?

"okay. I was gonna undo it for you so you didn't go over 3, but got tied up. In any case, thanks for helping out on the RFC. Talk about a complex issue. I didn't think I'd find myself fighting to remove criticism of a neo-nazi website, but, ha! that's the way these things go.

Personally, I can't believe I haven't been able to find a better sources on that website. That would solve all of this nice and easily, and then everyone could be happy-- us, Stick, and the Neonazis.

On a side note after looking over your user page, let me say: a) Napoleon is the greatest military leader in history. b) FOUR featured articles? I'm jealous. C) Mélissa Theuriau is quite pleasant. and D) History and Physics-- now THAT's a cool major set.

--Alecmconroy 01:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)"

Don't tell me you aren't biased. This is a gross violation of wiki policy to solicit help from other people this way. Do really want me to fight fire with fire and recruit editors from the jewish sites etc? You don't. And I wouldn't do that anyway because I don't need to. I can handle all three of you on my own.

This is what UberCryxic got as a reply after he tried to contact an admin about the cite (blatant forum shopping to scout for admins who will take your side BTW:

"I'm not entirely certain whether his point is wrong, though, since the OR/sourcing question can get pretty hairy when dealing with using the subject of the article as a source. (Fortunately) I haven't been involved in too many of the more elaborate fights on this topic, so I'm not entirely sure what the right answer is here. Might I suggest asking SlimVirgin to take a look at it? She has an enormous amount of experience dealing with more controversial topics and the attendant sourcing concerns. Kirill Lokshin 00:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)"

That was in reply to the OLD version. Do you seriously want to contest the new one? I'm game. Stick to the Facts 08:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not reinsert uncited content. The editors of this page are sticklers for citations - even 11 are not enough, apparently. Unless it is some content they want in, in which case zero cites is quite acceptable. Stick to the Facts 09:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we are looking at two different issues here. One is purely behavioral-- when you have four-to-one opposing a change, you don't just make that change repeatedly, you talk about it, you go to mediation, you go to arbitration. So, we really do need to get that straight. I don't feel particularly keyed up about the disputed text all that much-- I feel it's not a good addition, but the right argument by the right person could potentially convince me otherwise.

But i do feel passionately that you shouldn't go against consensus like you are right now. It's simply counter-productive.

Seems I'm the only one willing to discuss. I talked about my changes before making them, the fact that you didn't know that only proves that yoy didn't bother to look, you just went on auto-purge. Stick to the Facts 11:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, you just alienate yourself when you do thinks like call edits you disagree with Vandalism. Likewise, when you delete statements that everyone (including you) believe in, simply because they haven't been cited, you're probably disrupting wikipedia to illustrate a point. Whatever the content issues end up being resolved as, you need to stop these kinds of behaviors. For me (and for Uber I suspect), your behavior issues are a much bigger issue than the content issues going on here.

You're calling me out for deleting uncited stuff I actually believe in? Do YOU honestly believe that one of the strongest themes at SF is ethnic cleansing IE genocide? Just because it doesn't comport with what YOU think genocide means is irrelvant - words are defined in the statutes that apply them and in a criminal law context the one I gave is the only one that matters. Do you really believe that that poster wasn't talking about cleansing a village that had been captured by a non-military army? What DO you think it means? At least I cite the stuff - if you really want to jump on something jump on something uncited. Stick to the Facts 11:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the content issues-- THe suggestion of mediation is a good one. I think it'd be a splendid idea for you and whoever filed the original RFC to go to mediation on this, where someone more knowledgable than I could help you see where your going wrong in intepreting the situation (or, alternatively, could help other see how they're going wrong in their intepretation). I'll be happy to help chime in to such a mediation as needed.

I'll win Stick to the Facts 11:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I also have hope that the RFC will bring an expert to this who could better clarify this. I also still hope we'll just find a good source for the Stormfront-Genocide thing, and then we won't have to deal with any of this.

--Alecmconroy 09:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL you've got the best cite in the world - the smoking gun - the content on the site itself. You saw the guy talking about how to use guys to cleanse a captured town after the non-military army takes it?

I know you were just playing unbiased before, otherwise you wouldn't get to bent out of shape over something that you admit could go either way - there is a TON of easy calls there that I don't think are as important as this one.

You're biased, don't lie about it, and stop being judgmental for my supposedly lack of impartiality. At least I try to observe the rules enough not to recruit an army of my own. That's why I don't care about your 'concensus'. It is an illusion. I could get an army together and outnumber you 10:1 in one afternoon. I won't do that. But I'm cautioning you to keep a lid on the hypocritical 'consensus' stuff. I don't care if you get 10 against my 1, if I say 1+1=2, no matter how many you are, you can't say that 1+1=3. Stick to the Facts 10:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Stick, no, I'm really not biased, if by biased you mean "racists", "fascist", "neo-nazi", or "pro-genocide". I'm sure that's hard to believe from where you sit. It's like the ACLU fighting for the neo-nazis right to march. It's these cases that we must be extra-careful to not POV-push-- cases where a POV (like anti-racism) is so strong that it's easy to get swept away with it.

No, I can completely believe what you're saying - setting aside of course that they recruited you, and I can't imagine why they'd recruit an 'anti.' But anyway - I can actually believe some misguided doo-gooder seeker of truth would go so caught up in his self-righteous and saint-like 'impartiality' that he would completely lose sight of the fact that he might be wrong, and he might be championing one point on one side to neglect of the other side. Don't imagine for a second that I am an idiot who can't tell he's being impartial. That's patronizing. What I am trying to get into the article is PURELY OBJECTIVE and factual - and heavily cited. When I ask 'what will it take to satisfy you - 1000? 10000?' I get no reply. I will provide 1000. Give me a number.

I can really imagine some 'impartial' seeker of truth doo gooder thinking of himself as grand and noble for sticking up for the genocidal gun-hoarding set. But if you are one of these guys, you aren't the ACLU. You are a guy who is getting fixated on trying to balance one issue where there are 50 other issues out of balance. By doing that you aren't increasing neutrality at all.

And if you really do believe in the neutrality of wiki then you would never even bring up this consensus thing. You know full well that they have no 'consensus' - if only other people like me would take notice. SF is a collective hive - they openly admit that they ganged up to distort that poll about the segregated prom to distort the 'truth' and by playing their game you're doing no different.

Ya just don't have ties between Stormfront and Genocide. The owner, for example, is a signer of some big thing that says white-supremacists absoultely MUST be non-violent. Does that mean I believe him? no. I bet in his heart, he hopes for genocide, and I bet if he came to power, we'd see some serious genocides. But Stormfront and its organizers seem to have take care NOT to open endorse violence, and you need more evidence than just a few postings in their forum. Ya know? Anyway, I suggest you and Poison do mediation on this content issue.

Any 'policy' that is clearly not enforced is no more than a CYA statement. In court they would just rip that apart. His defense would say 'oo ya but he has this policy' and the other side would give 10000 examples of how that 'moderated' forum allowed the content anyway. If it slipped through and they missed it, what's the excuse for it still being there now? They sure do know about it now and it is still there.

Please also keep in mind that I attributed no such thing to any person nor to the site itself. There is a statement that the site claims not to allow suggestion of advocacy of anything illegal and my statement is a rebuttal to that. You think it is 'balanced' to let that statement stand as is without rebuttal, in the face of literally 1000s of posts that defy it? That is not logical. Stick to the Facts 11:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, I hope the Adminstrator noticeboard stuff has been educational for you. Whatever the status of the content issues, you need to be more respectful. Don't edit war against consensus. Don't call edits you disagree with Vandalism. Don't delete factual stuff that's uncited just for the sake of making a splash, etc

Don't patronize me. Please. You clearly don't know much about wiki if you can actually say 'well its 3 to 1 you lose.' Gimme a break. If you aren't just faking that you aren't a racist then I'm afraid you just aren't very smart. To be honest I can't really tell which one is the case right now. Stick to the Facts 11:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

--Alecmconroy 10:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Look here:

""okay. I was gonna undo it for you so you didn't go over 3, but got tied up. In any case, thanks for helping out on the RFC. Talk about a complex issue. I didn't think I'd find myself fighting to remove criticism of a neo-nazi website, but, ha! that's the way these things go."

Smoking gun? You guys were play-booking strategy for counteracting me without using your 3RRs.

I'm also holding out because I know that in the next few days some people will take notice and pitch in against you. Then we'll see what your little three man army can do against 10, 20, 30, etc...... Then let's see how willing you'll be to let consensus decide. I have a feeling at that point you'll have a different tune. Want to place a wager on it?Stick to the Facts 11:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know what mediation is, I'm not such a guru of Wikipedia LOL. I just recently figured out how to use RFC :). But I'll see the link provided and whether the mediation thing can be used here and how. Poison sf 21:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Article should be deleted

This is a personal web-site that promotes hate and racism.Why should wikipedia give it publicity ? Is any web-site on the internet a candidate for an article even if it just a forum of nazis ? Seems strange. One can start a million forum sites on free web-pages and create a wikipedia article for all of them. Did anyone suggest this for deletion before ? Amoruso 14:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely. The forum is used as an extension of their website and they repeatedly scrap content that is completely factual - 11 cites are given. Their 'reason' is that it is 'original research.' They do not seem to understand that going out and finding facts and then including them with cites is not 'original research' where no conclusions are drawn from those facts, as I've done.

I think the article should be scrapped entirely for a number of reasons, including the repeated insertion of bald-faced solicitations for donations, lack of notability, etc. The fact that they have been mentioned in the press for 'ballot stuffing' does not make them worthy of an article.

They are also sending messages to each other on their talk pages, trying to strategize reverts so that none of them exceeds the 3RR limit. This is a form of sock puppetry - I haven't reported them for it - yet.

This site is also a battle ground for random vandalism from anonymous editors. Stick to the Facts 18:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso. I personally feel, and I realize this is hard, but I feel that the subject of an article's political content shouldn't affect how we cover it. I understand the concern about promoting hate and racism, but, I think we should try to forget about that aspect of the debate as much as possible. As to whether the whole thing should be deleted-- I'd be interested to hear what people have to say. I think I would weakly oppose a suggest of deletion-- the site has been menioned on CNN a couple times, it seems to be pretty controversial, someone's set that mootstormfront website. But, there's a surprising lack of good sources on this, which is a real impediment to writing a good article.

--Alecmconroy 19:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This site satisfies many criteria for deletion. It is a soapbox. It is self promoting (ie soliciting donations.) Its "notability" stems from a glorified graffiti spree on a tv news informal poll. Wow. Vanguard doesnt have an entry.

It has no content other than an advertisement for the site. It is conceded that it is seen as a hate site, yet any criticism of the site in this article is extremely watered down. "some critics say the site promotes hate..." etc etc etc. This is not what wiki is about. How can a hate site have no criticism unless all of the criticism is quashed?

This article reads more like a description of a chapter of the rotarians than a white supremacist white nation racist pro-genocide hate site. No one is fooled.

It is no surprise that there are more pro-SF editors than anti-SF - SF can coordinate on the SF forums if they choose. I know for a fact that some of them coordinate on talk pages here on wiki. I know that SF thinks everyone in the world except them operates as a collective hive, conspiring against them. Nothing could be further from the truth. No one knows or cares about stormfront except for the forum visitors - it is no wonder no one contests the content here.

I am going to mark for proposed deletion later when I have time unless someone else wants to do it first.

On the other hand, if you allow some reasonable criticism, deletion might not be necessary. We can discuss. I should also let you know that eventually other "anti-SF" are going to take notice of this edit war and join in the fray. Either way, unless you stop using this article as a propaganda tool, you will lose. Stick to the Facts 20:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Haha. Blackmail? No thanks. BTW, Stormfront was also featured in at least on television show recently, and, actually, I think much more than that (see ADL & SPLC articles for more, if you STILL haven't did this essential thing). For a website it's pretty notable IMO. Of course, it's not as notable as google, but still... Anyway, it's pretty transparent that you're trying to blackmail here. "Allow me to have my way with the article, or else...". Well, let's see where this gets you. Poison sf 21:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

Some of you tell me I have to give up because the consensus is against me. I won't. The consensus will change when other 'anti's see what's going on and get involved. You have a temporary consensus only. Unlike you I do not recruit others to aid me. I won't do that - I don't need to.

You use this site as an extension of the stormfront forum and that is unacceptable. You give no reason for deleting my content other than that it is against the consensus, even though it has numerous cites.

I suspect that what you really are unhappy with is that this feature of your forum is having attention drawn to it. That's not my fault, and the fact that you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't belong in this article. This is an encyclopedia article, not an extension of the SF forum, and it is not to be used to solicit donations or to recruit members or to be used to sugar coat your 'organization'. Why would you want to do that anyway? If you want to make the site more appealing I suggest you reconsider the tacky nazi decor. Don't you think it's kinda junior-high-school-attention-seeking-rebel looking?

You accuse me of trying to 'own' the article. You don't own it either. Remember that. Stick to the Facts 19:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

@ Stick to the Facts: Stop the insinuations. You speak to Poison sf as if he's the owner of Stormfront (e.g. "your forum"), and are accusing him of making this article an "extension of it". Remember that even though what you add may be cited, doesn't mean it's consistent with the NPOV policy. Have a look at WP:NPOV#Undue_weight.

And for those of you who argue that the forum is not worthy of a Wikipedia entry, do remember that it ranks in the top 10 political forums on the internet by a number of criteria.[2]

--Ryodox 21:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

donation/advertisement

Stick to the Facts, IMO you don't understand what the advertisement policy is taking about:

Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for guidelines on corporate notability.

That's great and all - except you cited an entirely irrelevant part of the guidelines. This says that articles about companies and products are acceptable if blah blah. Where does it mention donations or advertisements? It doesn't. On the other hand, *I* cited a guideline about advertisements. When articles are glorified ads that is grounds for deletion of the page. Asking for donations is completely unacceptable and no rational person could possibly support a claim otherwise. You are NOT a non-profit organization. You don't even claim to be - and even if you did claim it that wouldn't make it so. You are just making the case for your own deletion stronger. Stick to the Facts 20:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue you have with "solicitation" of donations on Stormfront is your own problem. I personally find the idea that somebody is going to donate to Stormfront because it's mentioned on here ridiculous. Only people supporting Stormfront in the first place are going to do that. You misinterpret the policy, which does not prohibit stating information that somebody, from his own highly biased point of view, may see as advertisement. Basically, as the policy explicitly states, if information is objective, unbiased and verifiable, it's acceptable. I've already gone lengths to formulate that information in as brief and neutral way as possible. You can't remove it because you dislike it or have irrational fears that it will somehow increase donations to Stormfront, which is very unlikely anyway. The argument you have, based on a wrong interpretation of "advertisement" clause from WP:NOT is very weak, if that's all you have in store. Feel free to add any additional comments here though, or offer more toned down and compromise version of that passage, if you believe that it's somehow non-neutrally worded or is a POV in and of itself. Poison sf 20:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That's great and all - except you cited an entirely irrelevant part of the guidelines. This says that articles about companies and products are acceptable if blah blah. Where does it mention donations or advertisements? It doesn't. On the other hand, *I* cited a guideline about advertisements. When articles are glorified ads that is grounds for deletion of the page. Asking for donations is completely unacceptable and no rational person could possibly support a claim otherwise. You are NOT a non-profit organization. You don't even claim to be - and even if you did claim it that wouldn't make it so. You are just making the case for your own deletion stronger.

As for my claim that the ban on ads attributing to donations being weak - you must be kidding if you think a for-profit organization can ask for handouts on it site. That is just absurd. We'll put the matter to rest when the admin reviews it for deletion. Stick to the Facts 20:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"You quoted irrelavant part of guidelines" - Then which part is? I looked back and see that you posted this:

Advertisements masquerading as articles Advertisements posted on Wikipedia can be dealt with by listing them on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. On some occasions, the content can be removed temporarily on the basis of a suspected copyright violation, since the text is often copied from another website and posted anonymously. When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article can often be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view.

Is this it? Still fail to see how this can possibly apply. It's clear that the policy deal exclusively with information that does not conform to wikipedia policies (such as NPOV, verifiability etc) and serves as advertisement. If it conforms to policies, than it's not advertisement any more, it's encyclopedic content. That's my interpretation of this policy Poison sf 21:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "non-profit" - what's all the fuss about? Can you show any wikipedia policy that specifically states anything about profit or non-profit status, or are you trying to waste my (and other people's reading this) time and disregard "no soapbox" policy again ? Poison sf 21:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

criticism of Stormfront in wiki article

To demonstrate how criticism is quashed, here is all of the criticism of stormfront in the article as it currently stands:

"However, critics often label it as Neo-Nazi and accuse it of promoting racism.[2][3][4][5][6]. "

This isn't criticism at all. It says that the webmaster is a self described 'racialist' and it indicates that the threads include pro-nazi content. Further down the site defines itself as racialist. This is just another plug for the same content made up to look like criticism.

"Stormfront has been listed as a hate site, and a number of internet content filters prevent access to it for that reason."

I think Stormfront caters to this crowd and wouldn't appear to be criticism to would-be consumers at all. But aside from that, it sounds more like a condemnation of those who filter the content and judge it as a hate site. Extremely weak criticism at best.

"advocacy, as well as critique, of Nazism"

I'm not sure if this is supposed to be criticism or not but either way it is EXTREMELY biased they way it is written. The pro-nazism posts probably outnumber the anti-nazism posts by 20:1. And that isn't even factoring in all of the avatars that use swastikas etc.

The 'controversies' section is extremely unbalanced and biased and it reads more as if to demonstrate the tribulations that SF soldiers have to endure to fight the 'censorship' of the 'jewish-controlled government and media'.

Then, there's this - buried all the way at the bottom:

"Critics of Stormfront accuse its members of supporting violence, genocide, and ethnic cleansing.[46] [47] [48] [49]. [citation needed]"

Weak. Stick to the Facts 20:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You were already told that there can actually be ground for deleting that altogether. I've personally not advocated that so far and, in the interests of neutrality, offered this as a compromise version in the very beginning. However, you can't use personal research like "pro-nazism posts outnumber anti-nazism posts by 20:1". You need to attribute that to some notable source. Cherry picking material is also not allowed. Already just selecting threads on your own without some VERY formal and clear criteria is original researcch (instead of quoting third party source which mentioned these threads). Going further than that and being clearly biased and one-sided in this (and using hand-crafted statistisc like the afore-mentioned 20:1) is even more of an insult. Actually, if you weren't wasting your time on trying to unproductively damage the article and disregard Wikipedia policies, I think you could have found already some non-OR material to put there. Poison sf 20:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

We'll see what the admins think. Stick to the Facts 21:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

OOO looky here - from google:

www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=326372&highlight=wikipedia

Looks like someone at stormfront has been soliciting for trolls to come and gang up against the anti. This will be noted in the request for deletion. I'll search for other threads when I make my case.

In case you didn't know this is a gross violation of wiki policy. So much for your 'consensus.' Stick to the Facts 20:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's a pretty straightforward violation of the Wikipedia policy on meat puppets. Anyone involved in that discussion should give that policy a very close read and be sure to comply with it in the future. Soliciting editors from the website being discussed is MOST inappropriate. --Alecmconroy 21:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm pleased that you agree. Stick to the Facts 03:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"Holocaust Denial"

The term "holocaust denial", applied as a blanket label to any discussion of the holocaust that doesn't blindly endorse the dogma, is what wikipedia would call weasel words. There are many threads on Stormfront in which the Holocaust is discussed. These threads generally consist of questions and discussions of research to prove or disprove statistical claims. Unlike most venues where such questioning of dogma is severely if not completely silenced, Stormfront allows the discussion of THIS topic as well as almost anything else.

Attempts to describe a thread that discusses the Holocaust as a "holocaust denial" thread is blatantly slanted, even if for no other reason than use of the expression implies that there can be no discussion. Either that, or it implies that there are only two types of people: those who believe everything written about the holocaust is 100% true beyond question and those who believe none of it. It's a shamefully simplistic and anti-intellectual position to take, but I'm hardly surprised.

Or it could be that while there is much important research done on the Holocaust, and many facts that are probably lost forever due to the combined effects of Nazi secrecy, Allied attacks, and time, there is a core set of facts that have been very well established. Furthermore, those people who challenge those facts, like David Irving, have a, shall we say, statistical tendency to hold extreme positions about the Jews, about the Nazis, and in many cases white supremecy.--Prosfilaes 03:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Added AfD tag. Uncovered massive evidence of sock/meat puppetry vandalism. Stick to the Facts 02:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The Stormfront forum also contains a post to recruit editors to 'keep an eye on' the Stormfront article dated September 14th: http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:seUEv9D__TQJ:www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php

Many new people began editing the Stormfront wiki article on sept 15th: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stormfront_%28website%29&limit=250&action=history

User Brimba's user contributions page - began heavy editing of Stormfront article beginning Sept

15th http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Brimba

User Conserve's user contributions page - account first used to edit on Sept 13th, has only edited

Stormfront articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Conserve

User Magnetic's contributions page - account first used to edit on Sept 13th, has only edited Stormfront articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Magnetics

User ExplicitImplicity's contributions page, created account Sept 11th, first edit was stormfront article on Sept 13th: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&target=ExplicitImplicity

User Alecmconroy's contributions page, began editing stormfront article heavily Sept 16th: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=100&target=Alecmconroy

User UberCryxic's contributions page, began editing stormfront article heavily Sept. 16th: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&target=UberCryxic

Alecmconroy's talk page, showing solicitations from UberCryxic to assist in reverting pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alecmconroy&oldid=76349940

UberCryxic's talk page, discussing teaming up in reverting to avoid 3RR: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UberCryxic&oldid=76147892 Stick to the Facts 02:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If the AFD nomination is made, my comment is:

• Weak keep The subject of the article is only mildy notable. It's been mentioned in a couple of CNN stories, but, it's right on the edge. I did to support having it around, but it's hard to see this article as being much more than a stub. We are having a hard time covering the subject neutrally, just because of a lack of secondary sources that talk about the subject. So, it's a toss up, but i tend to error on the side of not deleteing. --Alecmconroy 04:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How does the language for this new content-descriptive section sound? It has 11 cites so you can't get much more fact-supported than that. Anyway, comments are welcome.

I also took out the solicitation for donations again. Stick to the Facts 07:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

---

---

alleged prohibition of advocacy or suggestion of illegal activity

I believe the sentence in the first paragraph see title of this section) calls for a rebuttal. The site is perfused with threads and messages that clearly demonstrate that this prohibition is not enforced. If Tony Soprano circulated a memo saying 'under no circumstances are any of you to kill anyone' would it be taken seriously? I think a rebuttal demontrating countless violations of this policy is merited, and I provided one in the last version which was edited out. I offered many different versions of this and they were all instantly scrapped with no valid explanation. I would either like to put it back in or discuss alternatives. Stick to the Facts 17:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Your addition was original research, so it was removed. That passage only notes the official claim, it does not imply that this claim is true. El_C 21:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

early removal of AfD tag

I haven't seen a good reason given for why the AfD tag was removed after only a few hours. Most of the votes were in favor of deleting it. Stick to the Facts 17:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I closed it early for the reasons stated. El_C 21:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Massive Removal of Citations

User:El C removed a massive number of citations. Why ? [3] is a version before the removal. thanks.--ExplicitImplicity 18:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know for sure but have a feeling that it's related to the policy that using something as a source about itself is not acceptable. Though, I personally think, could be acceptable when dealing with such things as self-identification or how the admin himself describes the board (because he can be quoted verbatim from the forum). We'll see how it goes now. I think somewhere in the edit history it was also said that links removed are related to "promotion" by "Stormfront" sympathizers. I personally don't have a lot of trouble with not having those links in the article. Most of them were not there initially. They were added in the process of an edit wars when Stick to the Facts was removing anything which was not sourced (or, in some cases, oversourced). Poison sf 19:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Those citations count as self-promotion for hate sites. El_C 21:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you implying that you apply a special criteria for exactly this category of sites, or is it just a normal practice for all articles about sites? Poison sf 21:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Similarly-- I don't especially think bulk of the citations were particularly necessary, but I don't necessarily agree that any reference links to a site being discussed count as self-promotion. And, of course, the fact that it's a hate-site is immaterial, in my eyes. Obviously, we need to look upon the site with a fair amount of skepticism, but I don't think we should have an outright prohibition on referencing the site. As such, I added one reference back in from the site about how many users they have. --Alecmconroy 22:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have informed other admins of the situation, so until there are objections there, this will be enforced as policy. I hid the citation, but might as well removed it - it's already noted in the hidden diff on top. El_C 22:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Which part of WP:NOT prohibits referencing hate sites? Obviously, the article shouldn't obviously promote its subject matter, but nothing I've seen requires a blanket prohibition of referencing the site being discussed. Is it because you find the site's content repugnant (as do I)? --Alecmconroy 22:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You only need to list the site once. If the facts are verifiable form the site, that is enough. Many links in the article inflates the pagerank and is interpreted as spamming. Guy 22:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. We already have SF in the external links section; individual refs can be accessed in the hidden diff. El_C 22:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What do we care what effect the article has on the pagerank, so long as links aren't being inserted explicitly for the purpose of promoting the site? It just seems like we're making special rules here because this is a hate site. Why should we comment out the references-- that's not what we do for any other pages that I've encountered. --Alecmconroy 22:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this standard procedure? I've never heard of us commenting out references before. --Alecmconroy 22:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, this is the policy which this entry will be subjected to from now on. Admins, and at least one member of the Arbitration Committee, have been informed of this, so I feel I have that mandate. El_C 23:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I certainly won't revert it until some sort of consensus is reached, but you shouldn't be so imperative on the subject, dictating "this is the policy which this entry will be subjected to from now on". If you want a policy prohibiting linking to hate sites, you should propose one through the usual channels. I tend to think that we shouldn't let the content affect how we cover it, but peraps others disagree. But it's something that needs to be discussed-- prohibiting references to a hate site would be a pretty substantial deviation from the current spirit and policies of Wikipedia I as understand them, and I expect I'm not alone.

Obviously, there are some complicating factors here. One is that there have been active attempts by the Stormfront crowd to solicit editors to promote their POV here on Wikipedia, and we need to guard against that. Similarly, the site is certainly not a 'reliable source', and we shouldn't just take its word for anything controversial. But I still don't there's any justification for a blanket prohibition of referencing a site merely because it's a hate site. --Alecmconroy 23:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, you should feel free to appeal my decision through whichever channels you see fit. El_C 23:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

El C, not that I disagree with your position. But your attitude is arrogant in the extreme. It if further entirely inappropriate for you to both make the change and to then enforce it. If you make an editing decision, then let other admins enforce it. Not doing so is practically the definition of admin abuse. There's no need to throw around a big adminitude when a simple discussion would probably suffice. Derex 08:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I take exception to the mischaracterization and stand by everything I said, and did. Feel free to take whatever action you see fit. El_C 09:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

K. I guess Village Pump is the appropriate place to start, so I made a thread you'll probably want to comment on. [4] Let me know if there's a more-appropriate channel. --Alecmconroy 00:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

An article about a hate site, should include links to that site; but I agree with El C that the number of such links appearing here were grossly excessive. Wikipedia:Reliable sources deals with both using material published by the subject itself and using material from extremist sites. In both cases such uses should be limited in scope and number, but used carefully they are appropriate. It is not Wikipedia's role to promote or demote any site, opinion, or activity, but rather merely to neutrally discuss the topic, and for this article referencing their pages are appropriate to that task. I'd probably restore links that quote important details about the site as a whole and which are not referenced elsewhere, but for things like general surveys of what appears in their forums simple reference it to "Stormfront.com Forum" without links to specific posts. A cursory inspection suggests I would likely reduce it from ~40 links to Stormfront writings to ~3-5. Dragons flight 00:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. The old version of the article was quite unwieldy and the citations were probably excessive. But, absent concerns about reliability, we shouldn't have a blanket prohibition against citing it as, for example, quoting how many user they have. --Alecmconroy 00:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason why we should direct our readers to a hate site as reference. Challenges answered by those sources, may be cited in hidden form. If another admin objects to this approach, then they can say so. But so far, none have. Until this happens, it remains outside the scope of editorial decisionmaking as a purely administrative matter aimed at protecting the integrity and reputation of Wikipedia. Which isn't to say editors are not entitled to object. On the contrary, I will read every objection carefuly. El_C 00:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you seriously overestimate the powers of being an admin, but of course, I'm not an admin, so perhaps I wouldn't know. I wasn't aware that adminship connotes any kind of special standing in this sort of dispute. In any case, though, this is a much larger issue than just this one article-- if we're going to ban all references to hate sites, that's a very big policy decision, and we should get lots of eyes involved one way or the other.

I will say this though, El_C. You're invoking your own status as admin to enforce your decision. If it turns out you're right, then you're doing your job, and you should be congratulated. If it turns out, however, that you've created your own brand new content policy without first proposing it, without first getting a consensus for it, and are then using your admin status to enforce it-- if it turns out you're wrong about theis, then you should be extra, extra careful not to mis-use admin status in the future. (Conversely, if it turns out I'm wrong, and this IS the current Wikipedia policy, then it will be I who has to be sure to be more careful in the future)

--Alecmconroy 01:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's plausible. As I mentioned, other admins (incl an Arbitrator) have been informed through the normal channels. If they object, I will certainly try to draw lessons from this. But, as mentioned, so far, none of them have, so it remains moot. El_C 01:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Any other admin? What am I, chopped liver? In case I was unclear, I do not believe that links to stormfront (or any other site) should be hidden or removed based on the site's content/ideology if those links are otherwise acceptable/appropriate as references and they represent the best available source known at the time. As I said above, I think most of the links can reasonably be removed but a few should probably be retained. Dragons flight 02:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice your comment; naturally, I'd like to see how you suggestion translates, practically and specifically. El_C 02:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

IANAA(Admin). In my opinion, a select few of the citations should be allowed to remain, per WP:RS#Partisan, religious and extremist websites, which states that extremist websites may be used as reliable sources of information about their own views, claims, and opinions. Also note that "neither political affiliation nor religious belief are in themselves reasons not to use a source.", which makes El_C's assertation that hate sites should be forbidden in direct contradiction of existing policy. --tjstrf 02:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned, any admin can over-rule me about this particular case and how it applies to the above policy. El_C 02:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the point Dragons flight is making is that he IS an admin [5]. Of course, I've never heard of admins having these sorts of special powers in a content dispute. --Alecmconroy 02:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

S/he is, I just missed the comment earlier. Obviously, I did not view this issue as being a content dispute. El_C 02:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

After reading the whole discussion i mostly agree with El C on the content (the 15 references now seen are OK, 60 was excessive), but disagree on his understanding of what an Admin is and ought to do. If that really is WPs understanding of Admin, i surely won't want to be an Admin. Greetings Earthlings.--ExplicitImplicity 13:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am undaunted by that. No one responded to my notice. I have no regrets & everyone else seem pleased that I became involved with this entry. El_C 01:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, your edits WERE good ones. I'm not surprised no one objected to your notice, I wouldn't have. What's objectional isn't your deletion of excessive citations-- it's your invoking and enforcing a new previously unheard-of policy that is a complete prohibition on referencing the site. I'll post a notice that draws attention to this specific aspect of the dispute. --Alecmconroy 02:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I welcome any review into my efforts to defend the integrity and reputation of Wikipedia. El_C 03:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In my view it's extremely problematic to link to hate sites. There's nothing in policy that says that references must be live; we provide live references as a convenience, not as a matter of policy, and in this case I think the reasons for not making them live is compelling. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Since there seems to be an official policy on that WP:RS#Partisan.2C_religious_and_extremist_websites saying explicitly everything that needs to be said, it appears that it shouldn't be "problematic" per se. "Primary source" use is explicitly permitted. I personally don't care a lot about references (unless somebody will start removing material again because "there're no cites"), but it's very bad that some people are trying to invent unique policies for this particular article. What will be next? Poison sf 18:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no policy that says links need be live. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"it's extremely problematic to link to hate sites". Why? Dragons flight 19:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Because they are sites promoting hatred; this should be self-evident. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

So what? If someone is reading an article about a hate site, they obviously want to learn about the topic and a natural thing to do is direct them to some relevant statements that the hate site has made. It's not an endorsement, its merely adhering to a consistent set of editorial principles. You seem to be arguing that the link itself is bad (as opposed to referencing them, per se), and I don't get that at all. To use your phrase, I find it extremely problematic to treat some links differently simply because some group of people (even a large group) finds their content distasteful. We should include links when they are relevant, contextually appropriate, and useful to the reader; and not try to engage in moral arguments about whether we should discourage people from visiting "inappropriate" sites. Personally, I think it is good for people to visit such sites, because it helps to better understand the nature of racism in our world. Dragons flight 21:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are you so determined that it be live? What difference does it make? I don't see why Wikipedia should aid and abet hate sites. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should treat hate sites any different than other potentially controversial topics. You are the one who wants to do so, but so far have made no argument for why except that it should be "self-evident". I certainly don't find it to be so. The same sort of non-argument could as well be applied to links to Planned Parenthood or Greenpeace, i.e. some people find them bad, therefore we should hide links to them. People should come to Wikipedia to get a neutral view of Stormfront. If we allow ourselves to change our editting policies based on our own distaste for the subject matter then that undermines our own credibility on the topic. Dragons flight 23:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

But there *is* a difference between hate and controversy, in real life, and often in law as well. The article should, of course, give a NPOV view of Stormfront. NPOV doesn't require dozens of live links to Stormfront threads. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it does. If you read my comments further up this thread, I think it should be pruned to a few links, but that a few links do deserve to be there. I haven't yet taken the time to make a concrete version for what that would look like, though I will try to do so later. Dragons flight 23:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes-- there's no reason to accept linkspam here, any more than we would accept it on any other page. But the point is-- we don't make special rules for sites with controversial political content-- we should treat this site the same way we'd treat any other site. References are acceptable if they are necessary to support the text. Massive insertion of unnecessary references is unacceptable. --Alecmconroy 23:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The special rules are already in place and the pertinent guidelines says "they should be used with great caution" (my emphasis). We are using great caution, the primary source (the SF url) is noted once. El_C 23:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm all for great caution about reliability. As I said-- I wouldn't trust Stormfront to tell me the sky is blue. But if we DO accept their reliability for some sentence in the article("e.g. Stormfront says the have X members"), then there's nothing on wikipedia policy that even remotely suggests we should have references that are reliable, acccepted, but censored. --Alecmconroy 23:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The policy is WP:NOT. I don't really have anything further to add that I haven't yet submitted. El_C 00:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I ask again-- what part of WP:NOT mentions hidden references? the only part of WP:NOT that seems relevant is Wikipedia is not censored-- unless you're implying that Dragon, I and others are from Stormfront and are seeking to promote our own site. You also say you've nothing further to add-- does that mean I should just go ahead and do a RFAr? I've been holding off to make sure discussion has gotten us as far as it going to. --Alecmconroy 00:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No comment. El_C 00:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Jay-- thanks for comment. I of course find your response deeply distressing. I'd hoped that El_C just got overzealous-- that he wasn't speaking for the sentiments of Wikipedia as a whole. Your endorsement suggests that I was probably incorrect in that hope.

I hate Nazis-- but I will fight for their right to march. If we don't comment out anyone else's references, we shouldn't comment out the Nazis' references, provided we accept the VALIDITY of those references. I expect I'll go ahead and ask the ArbCom as a whole whether they concur-- but I expect you and El are a far closer approximation for their sentiments than I, an ACLU-type, am. Which, for me is a real pity, because I REALLY don't want to join the ranks of the "Wikipedia Apostates", who have some ax to grind against some perceived slight from the Wikipedia leadership.

But what can I say-- I feel really bullied by what's occurred here. I'm not a Nazi, I'm not trying to promote the site in question. El_C came in, implemented a policy that no one had requested, and threatened to block anyone who opposed him. When I pointed out he had no consensus or precendent to justify his action, he authoritarianly declared "regardless, this is the policy which this entry will be subjected to from now on". When a wide variety of others complained, we were told our opinions essentially didn't count, because we were not admins. When another admin objected, El_C still did not relent.

Lol. Maybe I'm taking the whole thing way too seriously. The people who have been offended El_C's policy don't even dispute the actual text of the article! Maybe I shouldn't work up such a fuss. But what can I say--- people don't like being shoved around, even if they should happen to get shoved into a place that is VERY close to where they wanted to be standing anyway. And maybe it is a minor matter to censor the references to the hate site-- after all, we all hate Nazis, right? But, to me, it kind of a big deal.

What can I say-- I'm sentimental. Doing things by consensus, rather than by rank, is important, to me anyway. Treating all speech equally, regardless of whether we agree with the content of that speech-- it's important-- to many anyway. If Wikipedia feels differently, then I guess I do owe apologies all round for trying to push my way of doing things on to Wikipedia, and I suppose I ought to start shopping around for one of those "We hate wikipedia" discussion groups where I can surlily sit around till old age talking about those crazy Wikipedia kids and their evil cabal. LOL.

--Alecmconroy 19:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Alec, the links are still there, they haven't been removed, they're just not clickable. Anyone can paste them into their web browser and get to the site in question. When I provide links to books I'm using for references the references aren't live either, and one can't even paste them into a web browser to get to them, one must actually go to a library or even purchase the book to check them out. And I'm just giving my opinion here, because you explicitly asked for it. I haven't forced anything on anybody. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The links aren't here-- they've been deleted, and sure they're hidden in the history somewhere, but it takes a lot more familiarity than a copy and paste to visit them. A reader familiar with Wikipedia has go through 5-6 steps to find if a reference for a specific piece of text even exists. A reader unfamiliar with Wikipedia won't have any indication at all that hidden references are even a possibility. --Alecmconroy 21:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't realized that. In my view they should be placed in the article as comments, something like this: <!--<nowiki>www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=192615--></nowiki> Jayjg ^(talk) 22:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I hid the latest SF ref link; but before, I didn't bother keeping any of them as they seem rather tangential. I don't really care if hidden refs are used, I just did not see a strong enough reason and could not be bothered to do it myself. El_C 22:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, ones hidden as inline comments are still completely inaccessable to the average reader. And for what pages is this policy acceptable. Ku Klux Klan and American Nazi Party are easy candidates, but what about Anti-Gay sites? What about the Pro-LIfe or Pro-Choice sites? etc, etc, etc. --Alecmconroy 23:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familliar enough with those entries to comment at this time. El_C 23:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Jay-- first off I apologize if I was too strong in my comment. At the end of the day, I know everyone's just doing their best to make the best encyclopedia they can. If people disagree, it's just because they have different priorities about what constitutes best. For me, not promoting the Nazis is very low priority, but treating all forms of speech equally is a high priority. If others have different priorities-- if stopping Nazis is more important than stopping censorship-- that's understandable-- it's just distressing to me.

Similarly, I didn't mean to imply that YOU have done anything but offer an opinion. You haven't invoked your status on ArbCom to buttress your opinion. The bullying and shoving references were to El_C-- and even then, I don't really mean to suggest that he IS a bully, so much as I just want to underscore that some of his methods are very upsetting. He invoked his admin status early and often, he declared "this is the policy which this entry will be subjected to from now on", and certainly implied that my view, stick's view, poison's view, explicitly's views, Tjstrf's views, and even Dragon's view didn't count, because none of us were admins. Most upsetting. --Alecmconroy 21:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not "threaten to block anyone who opposed me," that is false. Alecmconroy is taking too much liberty with his interpretations. El_C 21:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I assumed your invoking your administrator status was to imply that you were acting as an administrator, not an editor, in this circumstance, and that reverting an admin would be met with the standard disciplinary actions for disrupting the encyclopedia. If, however, I was wrong in that, and you didn't mean to imply that there would be any disciplinary action taken against other editors who reverted you, then I apologize for misunderstanding. Certainly, your controversial deletion of all the citations is not currently supported by consensus among the editors on the article-- if your admin status isn't an issue, then we can simply revert your controversial deletion as we would the actions of any other editor, and you can propose a "delete all references to hate sites" policy through the usual policy proposal process. --Alecmconroy 21:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I view it as an administrative initiative, yes, but I may ask someone else to enforce it. El_C 22:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, havent had much time to write, but generally i agree with Alec on nearly every point, especially on "treating all forms of speech equally is a high priority". It seemed to me as if El_C came in and claimed some sort of privilege on editing by saying "this is the policy which this entry will be subjected to from now on", while pulling the policy up his ass. I certainly can't imagine that s/1 with Che Guevara on his Userpage is one of the Authoritarian type, but that he can seem to be one is now fact. As said before I agree with the page as it is now, and El_C generally did quite a good job on the Article Page, but i believe his job on the Talk Page was sub-optimal. Additionally his answers seem to get shorter and shorter, as if he were annoyed (my interpretation!!) by those valid (my interpretation!!) questions Alec is asking, and as if he wanted to evade answering them (again my interpretation!!). I would love to hear your interpretation, El_C.-- ExpImp^{talk con} 00:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No comment. El_C 00:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well, if you're done commenting, El, you can do one of a couple things. You can ask that we can keep talking about this, in the hopes that a consensus will be reached supporting your edits, in which case, I'm certainly in no hurry to get this resolved, and we can talk about it as long as you feel it is productive. Alternatively, you can accept that as of now, you do not have a strong consensus or a clear policy imperative compelling these cites to be hidden-- I will revert a few of the critical citations, and you can work to create such a policy by writing a proposal for it. Or, you can tell me, as admin, that Wikipedia policy compels me to leave the citation hidden, and that failure to comply with that will result in a block (either by you, or by another admin), in which case, I will certainly obey, and we can go ahead and ask Arbcom to have a look. --Alecmconroy 01:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It is also at my discretion to do nothing. As I already said, I leave the hidden ref issue, as an administrative matter (if it is deemed as such), to other admins. Otherwise, I have no further comment at this time. El_C 01:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fine-- I'll go ahead and revert then. I have the highest respects for Wikipedia policies-- if you or any other admin tells me that to do so IS a violation of Wikipedia policy, I will gladly self-revert and leave the whole thing up to Arbcom. If you're not telling going to tell me that's the case, however, then I'll act under the assumption that you are no longer confident that it is a matter of Wikipedia policy. I expect, therefore, that I will not find myself blocked for this any time in the near future-- if I'm mistaken in that assumption, you should tell me, and I will not make that edit. But for the time being, there's no consensus supporting hiding the citations, no clear cut policy compelling the citations to be hidden, and no admin instructing me that un-hiding the citation would be a policy violation, so I will go ahead and unhide them. Feel free to appeal my decision through whatever channels you see fit. --Alecmconroy 01:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Appealed. I reverted your poorly fromatted ref to stromfront as I feel it harms the integrity and reputation of Wikipedia. Thx. El_C 02:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I see. And is this revert because the link was poorly formatted? or because it is a link to a hate site? If the former, I'll be happy to just fix it. If the latter, I won't revert, and you should have just said so a moment ago, so we didn't needlessly go through a round of reverts. --Alecmconroy 02:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it because, as an editor (and I am still entitled to edit the entry, I hope), I feel it harms the integrity and reputation of Wikipedia. I also found it carelessly formatted, but that's an aside (if it wasn't, I would have fixed it). El_C 02:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay-- which option would you like next: Mediation, Arbcom, or prolonged and frustrating edit war? The last option if, of course, pure silliness. --Alecmconroy 02:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The option I would like is to leave this entry, at least for long enough till people miss me. Good bye. El_C 02:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand that means. In fact, I'm sure I don't. My best guess is that you're just saying you need a break from fighting mastodons. --Alecmconroy 02:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No comment. El_C 03:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting criticism that might should be included

I won't include it myself, lest I upset the edit ceasefire, but I notice the article doesn't include the fact that the KKK founder of the Stormfront spent time in prison for attempted an armed overthrow of the government of Dominica, where he planned to set up some sort of white nationalist dictatorship. It's slightly tangential, but it might merit a mention, given that Storm claims it's dedicated to on-violence, despite its founder having planned a violent overthrow of a small government.

In general though, the article looks really good to me. (Setting aside, of course, the blanket prohibition of referencing hate sites, which is more of a meta-discussion, rather than specific to this article.)

--Alecmconroy 00:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That's clearly worthy of inclusion. Can you cite a reliable source so that we can verify it is a "fact" ? El_C 00:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How bout this USA Today story? --Alecmconroy 00:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. El_C 01:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Page ownership

I for one am quite happy with the current version of the page, particularly the removal of the external reference links peppered throughout the page. These where clearly being used by Stick to the Facts to game the system; i.e. to exert ownership over this page. If he disliked something, he simply stated that it wasn’t properly referenced and removed it; conversely, he added “references” to his own opinions as a means of legitimizing them, even when those references failed to support his opinion.

I am not necessarily in support of removing all links to all hate sites. My support for what was done here relates to three simple things:

1) Placing a fact tag and asking for a citation should mean that the editor who placed the tag has already made a good faith effort at fact checking, and he/she has failed to verify the statement. I can see no indication that any fact check was performed prior to the tags being added. Nor can I see any indication that the majority of statements where so outlandish as to require an immediate removal prior to a fact check.

2) The references where not being used for their intended purpose, but to assert page ownership. This is the heart of the problem with the page in its previous form. This page had so many citations simply because that is how Stick to the Facts was playing his game. He said jump, and others asked “how high”, thus we get what we had here –a mess.

3) Referencing so many facts with external links greatly degrades readability. Controversial statements should be referenced, beyond that, if the user questions something, they can do a goggle search themselves. Having over 60 references in an article of this length is a bad joke and reflects poorly upon Wikipedia.

Attempts at page ownership though bad-faith editing is the problem. That is what was occurring here. How to correct that is what should be discussed.

With someone so clearly intent on ownership, as soon as you start adding in citations again, you open the door wide, and the problem will almost certainly reassert itself. Brimba 02:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In an immediate sense, Stick to the Facts appears to be conducting him/herself fine now; if that changes, we'll deal with it at that time. El_C 02:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good to me. Brimba 02:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You make excellent points, Brimba. El also may not be aware-- in general, the excessive citations weren't inserted by supporters of Stormfront in order to promote it. Most were inserted by opponents of the site in order to disparage it. In some sense it doesn't really matter who added them or or why they're there. But on the other hand, it's might be figuring into his thinking.

I also agree that there's no need to do anything about Stick's past actions-- it seems like the current text of the article is pretty acceptable to everyone.  :)

--Alecmconroy 02:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that over 60 references in an article as short as this one, about an 'organization' as insignificant as Stormfront is extremely excessive. Unfortunately until recently there were some who insisted on providing a cite for "the sky is blue", to quote Alecmconroy (see archived discussion.) Hopefully those days are over. Some of the sock puppets are already no longer a factor here - only time will tell how many other sock/meat puppets will no longer be among us.

I still feel very strongly that the bit about stormfront claiming that it doesn't permit suggestion etc of illegal content needs a rebuttal. That statement cannot stand on its own. It would be like including in the first paragraph of a tobacco company article "the company claims that it does not sell products that are harmful to human health" without saying anything about the negative effects in the article. Would that be acceptable? Not in my opinion. In fact, saying that with no mention of the harmful health effects of smoking would be an enormous detraction from the potential usefulness and relevance of the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a sales brochure, or a convention with vendor booths plugging their products.

There is no difference between the tobacco company example and the Stormfront prohibition. The site is rife with illegal content. The very notion of a "white nation" is at its core illegal, at least by any of the means I've seen proposed. Genocide is not limited to mass murder. It can be as 'insignificant' as causing mental anguish in an effort to coerce a population to expatriate. I challenged, on numerous occasions, for people to present a SINGLE means of achieving a "white nation" from anywhere in the Stormfront forums that did not fit the legal definition of genocide. I never saw a single one. I, on the other hand, offered to provide thousands of examples of it being genocide - I would have done it gladly.

The site is awash with swastikas, nazi imagery and names, icons featuring nazi leaders, holocaust this and holocaust that, etc etc etc. I submit that genocide/"ethnic cleansing" is THE SINGLE most pervasive theme of the website.

Contrary to what people think, I am not passing judgment on the website. I don't pass judgment on other people's bad taste, although to me it looks silly, like a junior high schools kid's attempt to get attention from his parents by 'rebelling' in an outrageous manner. Swastikas? Come on - that's just silly guys.

Stormfront, however, is worse than the cigarette company example. In that case, they almost certainly don't WANT the users of the tobacco products to suffer ill health effects; rather, they likely see it more as an undesired byproduct. Stormfront is different. The genocide theme is central and undeniably intentional. Their whole mission is, even if not to actually bring about the 'ethnic cleansing' of a people, to fantasize about it and glamorize the notion. Do I think they are a threat to anyone? Of course not - that's absurd. They have no more chance of actually accomplishing anything than I do of swimming across the Atlantic. Do I think they should be censored? Absolutely not. But I do believe that no information is better than disinformation or false information, and unless we can get some more even balance to this article I will continue to support its deletion. People need to be aware that visiting and posting on the site can jeopardize their future career prospects. At the very least, they should not be led to believe that the site does not 'advocate or suggest' illegal activity. For an encyclopedia to allow this statement to stand in such a slanted context is intellectual fraud, or at least gross negligence. Stick to the Facts 07:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the word 'prominent' in the opening description. What exactly does 'prominent' mean in this context? More prominent than what? It certinaly isn't 'prominent' as far as I'm concerned since 95+ percent of people have never heard of it (I'm being generous.) Stick to the Facts 07:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Stick-- I've disagreed with your specific behavior (repeatedly re-inserting disputed text against consensus) a lot more than I disagree with your actual point of view. I tend to suspect that most of the members of Stormfront are, indeed, advocates of racial violence. But understand that like a court of law or a reputable newspaper, we can't just edit based on our suspicions-- we need it to be ironclad verifiable. And I don't see how we can really conclude anything about a site with 90,000 members merely by looking at a few posts.

My edits have nothing to do with my view on racism whatsoever. I would advocate just as zealously for an article on any other topic that was as far out of neutral alignment as this one was.

I think you forget to focus on some extremely important factors. Fringe groups like this one will tend to recruit people to "keep an eye" on the article. Those who aren't in the organization either don't know about it or don't care. In a place like wikipedia such things can get extremely far out of line, with the fringe group actually having far more of a voiceas to what "neutral" is than mainstream society. This is an encyclopedia - it is NOT a study in ethical relativism nor is it to be used as an extention of the subject of the article or as a propaganda tool.

You repeatedly urged me to follow 'consensus'. What do you think now in light of proof of massive sock and meat puppetry by Stormfront? There is a direct link to a recruitment thread. Even if I wanted to recruit people, where would I do it? Yes there is mootstormfront, and I have an account there under this same name but I never mentioned the Stormfront controversy until just today. Even if I had, the membership is miniscule compared to Stormfront. Why? Is it because more people support Stormfront than oppose it? No. Other people don't know it exists and/or have better things to do. Stick to the Facts 17:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

But maybe there's another way to accomplish the same goal-- not by talking about the posts themselves, but by talking about the behavior of the founder. How would you feel if we countered the claims of non-violence by referencing not a few isolated posts, but by point to the history of racial violence of its founder. Something like

The webmaster of the site is Don Black, a self-described racialist and former Grand Wizard, or national director, of the Ku Klux Klan. Black has claimed his site has "zero tolerance for violence", but in the 1980s, Black was imprisoned for planning a violent overthrow of the government of Dominica, where he intended to set up a white nation"

First of all this would be factually inaccurate. Black didn't try to 'invade' Dominica to set up a white supremacist government. And he certainly didn't "plan" it - he was a mere henchman. The plan was to put former ousted Prime Minster Patrick John back in power and set up 'business' - ie a cocaine smuggling enterprise. Furthermore, whatever Black did or didn't do 25 years ago has nothing to do with what is allowed on the site today. Stick to the Facts 17:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the IDEAL solution would be if we had some good secondary source that had conducted an extensive study of the posts and could talk about them, as a group, and their propensity to support violence. But, I haven't been able to find one, and I've looked a fair bit.

--Alecmconroy 13:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

A rule about (non)promotion of illegal activities under US law on the forum is a bit different from 'zero tolerance on violence'. I would probably not recommend putting the latter claim into the article, because it too broad and may misleadingly suggest that Stormfront requires pacifist worldview from its members or something. Also, obviosly, actions of the webmaster (especially in a distant past) and even his private beliefs are a different matter from what does he want to be discussed on his site (for which he may be legally liable). Perhaps, some short mention about the failed invasion incident may be notable for this article, but then, IMO, usage of argumentetive language constructions like "although" or "but" must be minimized and moderation must be taken not to copypaste a whole Don Black article in here (which has its own space) Poison sf 13:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, see-- I'm glad we talked about that addition. If both poison and stick are in agreement that it's not a helpful addition, then I certainly won't try to put it in.  :) --Alecmconroy 19:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I am absolutely opposed to it. Whatever the webmaster did or did not do 25 years ago is irrelevant to what the forum policy states. We also arent going to agree on any description of the purpose of the "invasion" since the Stormfronters claim it was to establish some kind of white supremacist colony or something, and other references say it was part of a deal to put Patrick John (a black man.....) back in power in exchange for allowing a base of operations for illicit activity including cocaine trafficking. See operation red dog. To summarize - I dont agree to it because it is irrelevant, and because it is factually questionable - and also because that advertising for Stormfront - they actually seem to take pride in it, at least the version of events that they claim to be true. Three reasons to oppose it as far as I'm concerned. Stick to the Facts 20:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

IE see here: "according to a 1987 analysis by Stanley Barrett, the purpose of the invasion was not to establish a white supremacist nation, but to establish lucrative businesses involving cocaine, casinos and brothels. It is alleged that in 1980, Droege met several investors from Las Vegas in Dominica."

• It's clearly noteworthy in the respective bio entry, whether the event is disputed or not. But it's not an especially pressing issue for this entry. El_C 01:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso

Ahem.

"bull. every (SIC) member there has a swastika or a neo nazi avatar. thread are opened in tribute to hitler, himmler, heydrich, eichmann, rommel and hess. no way.)" [6]

Well well. I've made my own position clear on your POV edits (supported by arguments which don't attempt to adopt even a semblance of neutrality). I'll probably abstain from further reverts not to create more problems for myself (since I'm already accused of sock, meat-puppeteernig, conspiracy and what not) but I hope other editors will see this POV for what it is. Poison sf 11:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm actually deliberating whether saying "This site is a nazi site" is POV or not, but generally considered is the most NPOV possible.

I'm just wondering if you're a member trying to whitewash the forum or really unfamiliar with it :

some posts. btw, if you want we can change it to hitler admirer site. See first link.

[www.stormfront.org/forum/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=3625] [www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=3334410&postcount=3] [www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=3261656&postcount=2] [www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=3331235&postcount=31] [www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=3437219&postcount=10] [www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=3438324&postcount=25] [www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=3410118&postcount=37] [www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=327529] [www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=202341] [www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=327686] [www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=327189]

Amoruso 12:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Your comments about whitewashing can be forwarded to El_C who authored that relatively neutral version. You've already clearly demonsrated that you're not neutral IMO. I think you're the editor who proposed to delete the article because the subject offends your views, aren't you? Poison sf 13:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No, because the article clearly is not encyclopdic and is only an ad for a nazi web-site. The fact that it's a nazi web site is obvious to anyone, it's sourced also, and it will stay. Amoruso 14:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You're not an owner of an article to make ultimatums about what will or will not stay. But your position is clear. It's based on POV and assumptions that has nothing to do with encyclopedia principles ("obvious to anyone") etc. BTW see previous discussion to better understand the idea that it's wrong to cherry pick content and project your views on a big and diverse community, even if you dislike it Poison sf 15:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I think that "generally regarded" is a CLASSIC case of a "weasel word. Poison sf 15:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not. The only other option is to say "Stormfront is a neo nazi site" - if you prefer that, we'll go with that. Btw, why was the adolf hitler sentence erased ? I'm going to revert it all to my version, unless more serious objections are made. You haven't provided proof to your allegation that generally regarded as neo-nazi site is wrong. It is in fact highly accurate. If you provide some sourced information to claim otherwise, we'll revisit. Amoruso 17:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No it's not "the only other option". I refuse this false dischotomy. There're plenty other options available. As for your "sourced" information, it bears the same problems that Stick's "sourced" material had: you're cherry picking information (in a CLEARLY biased way, for example you mention threads/posts in favour of Hitler, but refuse to mention threads critical of him, which CAN be found), you're making outlandish claims (like that every member has a "nazi" avatar), you're mixing different things (for example, you equated mention of "ZOG" with neo-nazism, which is false. Using concepts like "ZOG" can be seen as indicating anti-semitism, but it really CAN'T be seen as a reliable indication of neo-nazism), you're engaging in original research (and highly biased at that) - "every other thread is about Hitler". Well what else can I say? Obvious bias/POV and OR problems with your reasoning and, consequently, with the information you're adding. Poison sf 10:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid there are a lot of things you're going to have to start accepting. You need someone to take you aside and explain NPOV. It does NOT mean that if there are 99 of one view and 1 of another then they must both be presented equally. In fact the guidelines state the exact opposite. See wikipedia: NPOV. To demonstrate how silly your insistence is - imagine if, in characterizing any organization's views on something, you had to say that their views addressed both sides equally even if there were only the smallest evidence of one of the sides. IE to say that 'The ACLU is both for and against civil liberties' merely because you can find some example somewhere on some forum. Or to say that the red cross is "both for and against human rights." This is so preposterous that the subject is closed as far as I'm concerned and there is no point in further discussion. Read NPOV before you broach the subject again, please. Until then do not waste bandwith on this again. Stick to the Facts 14:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you really have to finally learn what no-OR policy is all about. Of course it would be BS to look for something on ACLU forum and then base the article's text on it. Only notable sources would be quoted and opinions or claims attributed to them, when necessary. Poison sf 19:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, don't invest too much entergy in this debate until we determine the outcome on the check user investigation of poison sf and 6 others for sock/meat puppetry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Poison_sf#Poison_sf

BTW, you DO need to "invest energy" into debate and can't ignore the arguments, per the "assume good faith" policy (until bad faith is actually proven). It's obvious to anybody with half a brain that the checkuser request is utterly spurious and exhibits traits of problems with sanity on its own. However, if somebody goes on and performs it, there's nothing to be found in any case. You're a REALLY confused person. One moment you're talking of sockpuppets, another you're talking about conspiracy. Conspiracy of what, maybe that of sockpuppets? Poison sf 10:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

An assumption is overcome if there is sufficient evidence to show that it was not a valid assumption. As for the 'sockpuppet conspiracy' - do you deny that you requested the help of others in the edit war? Choose your answer carefully. Stick to the Facts 14:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The answer is that sockpuppets have nothing to do with requesting help of others in the edit war. Do you even understand what a sock puppet is? Get your friggin act together. You've a nasty habit of throwing unrelated and/or mutually-exclusive accusations together as if they somehow support each other. It's called "throwing s--t and seeing what will stick". I'm not going to play along. You're welcome to file RFC on my conduct during these edit wars or anything else of this sort. If I'll need, I'll further defend my actions. Meanwhile, here's a comment I posted previously that will serve as a semi-statement on this issue for now: [7]. Poison sf 19:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you suffering from selective memory loss, or are you intentionally leaving out that you are also accused of using MEAT PUPPETS. Guess what? Recruiting others for help in an edit war is a violation and is a bannable offense. So by this statement are you admitting that you recruited others to help? Do you deny that you recruited others? It is obvious that "poison sf" = Poison Stormfront and that was your user name in that thread. You are the main editor of the SF article from the SF faction. Look through the RfCU logs - people have been found guilty as charged with far less evidence. Thanks for linking that message to "uber" - sounds like a confession to me. I'll be sure to add a link to it to my RfCU. See you around - or not. Stick to the Facts 20:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a direct link to a post to the SF forums - including a poster with the username Poison... - where several people are discussing their changes to the SF article. Until we know the outcome of that this is premature.

Oh, if we're giving links, there's also a mootstormfront thread with a user named 'Stick to the Facts'. [8]. What a coincedence *rolleyes*. Poison sf 10:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It is no coincidence, I started the thread. Stick to the Facts 14:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

As for my feelings about scrapping the article - as things stand now I think it should be scrapped. I don't like censorship but I also do not believe that misinformation or disinformation is better than no information. Information based on fact selection, mischaracterization, or outright lies are worse than no info at all IMO. These guys wanted to say that 'the forum has discussion that is pro, as well as critical of, Adolf Hitler" (not verbatim) without mentioning that the pros outnumbered the critical by about 19:1 - maybe more. They refuse to discuss or negotiate - they merely recruit editors on their forum and then claim 'majority'. As long as that practice continues this site will never be encyclopedic. Howeverm if circumstances change, it COULD be worth keeping but I don't think it deserves its own article - maybe a blurb as part of another article. Stick to the Facts 21:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you are really serious about it being deleted, you are free to appeal directly to the Arbcom to have it deleted. El_C 01:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who are "these guys", because it's me who added that part about Nazism (pro and contra discussion) and I'm not plural. I also stand 100% behind that edit and I will strongly suggest similar things again, because it would be ridiculous to depend on "statistics" like 19:1 cooked up by Moostormfront posters (yes I can't prove you and 'Stick to the Facts' on Mootstormfront [9] are the same person, but I'll assume as much as you usually assume about people) would be most idiotic thing to do. Selecting threads without proving that they're notable (for example, that some source mentioned those threads) is pretty much like OR and sucks already, but deliberately cherry picking opinions and cooking up statistics is absolutely unacceptable. Yes this has problems, because it substitutes "what threads do I want to mention to make a point" instead of normal Wikipedia notability criterias. But, if you start by cherry picking disparaging posts, that at the very least should be balanced by mentioning posts selected from a different POV Poison sf 10:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Again you are deluded about the meaning of NPOV. You cannot say with a straight face that no one can prove that there are more pro than con hitler posts and therefore they should be given equal weight. Insisting on things like that is why you have no credibility. As for looking for proof that I am the same as the STTF on mootstormfront - look no further - your proof is right here in my admission.

I never counted. It would be pretty difficult to do. You are blatantly biased, I can be seen as biased, everybody else probably too. That's why original research isn't allowed here. If somebody notable goes and counts then, at least, it may be attributed to them and it's up to the reader to determine how credible that source and its methods are. Poison sf 19:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

And you'll have to excuse me when I lump you all together as "these guys" - can you blame me in light of all the sock puppeting you are accused of orchestrating? Stick to the Facts 14:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I CAN blame you. Review the "assume good faith" recommendation. You can't assert anything until it's proven, especially when it's as outlandish and confused as the checkuser you filed. And, of course, it's never going to be confirmed, because a cursory glance shows it's utterly spurious and you're full of it. BTW why don't you add to the comedy and append El_C to the list? Any significant differences in the version he authored and versions that, according to you, were a product of a conspiracy of Stormfront users, my sockpuppets, my meat-puppets or whatever else your wild imagination suggests? Poison sf 19:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"Thanks for linking that message to "uber" - sounds like a confession to me. I'll be sure to add a link to it to my RfCU" - That's simply idiotic, Stick. Feel free to waste time of people assigned to do checkuser checks by your BS unrelated to their duties. It will certainly gain you their sympathies *rolleyes*. Regarding "recruiting", just out of curiosity, whom do you believe I recruited? Timeline for some of editors who are relatively new and thus can be seen as suspects: first edit of the user Magnetics: 2006-09-13. First edit of user ExplicitImplicity: 2006-09-11. First edit of user Conserve: 2006-09-13. (All other editors are old-timers and accusations against them are just idiotic). Earliest comment of a user named "Poison" in a Stormfront thread (which you're dwelling on so much): 09-17-2006. The very first post in that Stormfront thread, by a user named "mithar": 09-14-2006. I submitted RFC : 2006-09-16. A semblance of consensus was established around 16 september with editors called in via RFC and your POV and cherry picking was removed, see for example [10] . Those who participated in discussion and consensus building are not new editors, thus can't be suspect to be recruited at Stormfront. Well, except maybe ExplicitImplicity, but, if we were conspirators and wanted to own the article together, I guess I wouldn't be supposed to actively seek other editors attention via RFC. So, whois a recruit? Magnetics and Conserve IMO are quite likely Stormfront posters (but registered BEFORE Sep 17), but I honestly have no idea who they're and don't control their actions. Some of their edits were not ideal, usually they were taken care of in my absence but when I could I attempted to fix bad edits (See [11] [12]). Again, meat-puppets are people recruited for bad faith edits and vote rigging. Even if you believe that me and Poison on Stormfront are the same person, I submitted RFC on 16 september (how's that for a conspiracy?) and things were pretty much not in your favour on 17 september when the first comment by the user Poison on Stormfront was made. I haven't noticed any involvement of Magnetics or Conserve, who, I think, can be seen as most suspicious from the bunch of accounts, in consensus building. Even if they're Stormfront users, they registered several days prior to September 17 and their edits, even those which leave a lot to be desired, are probably because of lack of experience and understanding of how to behave on Wikipedia. They probably didn't even come because of the Stormfront thread, which was started on Sep 14. By september 17 no new "meat-puppet" like accounts arrived (at least I didn't notice) OR WERE NEEDED to bend consensus, because it was developing towards fairly and neutrally convering the subject of the article without biased OR, which is a characteristic of your edits. Bottom line: you suffer from wild imagination, paranoia and inability to accept legit criticism Poison sf 21:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

mention of SF forums

I find it very hard to understand why, of all the SF forums, these are the ones that are mentioned in this article: Polls, Poetry, Quotations, Music and Entertainment, Lounge, Classified Ads, eActivism and Stormfront Webmasters, Multimedia, Graphics and Talk. Some form of self-help is given in forums entitled Privacy, Network Security & Encryption, Business and Finance, Self Defense, Martial Arts & Preparedness, Health and Fitness, Homemaking, Education and Homeschooling and Legal Issues.

Are these the forums that best define what SF is about?

I think it is time for a reminder that "neutral" does not mean "words that are unoffensive". Neutral means choosing words that do not *mischaracterize* the subject matter or slant it one way or the other misleadingly - either favorably or disfavorably. If the subject matter is offensive, the words that describe it are going to be offensive but that does not mean that they are not neutral.

This would be like the KKK site listing favorite activities as sewing, carpentry, and campfires. Does that describe the KKK in any meaningful way? Of course not. Is it neutral? Absolutely not. (And don't flame me and say 'the KKK doesn't do that crap anymore idiot!' it is an example)

When you list some properties of the site, but exclude the ones that are disagreeable or unpleasant to think about, THAT is non-neutral point of view and leaves the article misleading.

This site still needs a LOT of work. I ask the admins that seem to be bent on auto reverting every edit we make to keep in this in mind. If you are just going to auto revert everything then please just lock it totally and so note it at the top of the page. Stick to the Facts 23:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Additionally... I do not understand why genocide and/or ethnic cleansing, arguably the MOST prevalent theme in the site, only get mentioned inso far as this: "Critics accuse Stormfront members of supporting violence, genocide, and ethnic cleansing. Stormfront discussion and direct link to Free ethnic cleansing manual book." It is buried at the very end of the article. Meanwhile, the MLK portion of the article gets to say this: "It has pages entitled "Why the King Holiday Should be Repealed!", "Black Invention Myths" and "Bring the dream to your school!". The material provided calls Dr. King "a philanderer, a drunk, a liar, a plagiarist, and a cheater" and "a sexual degenerate, an America-hating Communist, and a criminal betrayer of even the interests of his own people" Stormfront serves as a host to some other white nationalist websites, such as solargeneral.com."

Does this seem balanced to anyone? And if you say yes please explain your reasoning or you get no credit for your answers. Stick to the Facts 23:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's balanced that one should claim that genocide is the most prevalent theme on the site. Can you prove this? It seems like the reason why Stormfront's alleged promotion of genocide isn't getting as much treatment as you'd like it to is because it can only be interpreted from a handful of threads, most of which actually focus on a hypothetical "race war" scenario.

--Ryodox 23:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

At the core of the site is the "White Nation" concept. There is no way to achieve a physical "White Nation" other than by genocide as defined by law - genocide is not limited to mass murder but includes coercing the expatriation of all or part of a people through infliction of physical or emotional suffering. I have cited the language of the statutes several times. I invited anyone to present a single means by which a "White Nation" could be achieved other than by genocide - I have yet to hear a response to that.

The name of the Forum is "Stormfront White Nationalist Community". There are threads about the Holocaust everywhere. Nazi symbols, names, avatars, swastikas, user sigs with overt or subtle nazi content (example of subtle - prevalence of '88' which I think stands for heil hitler, i suppose because some people think 8's are kinda like h's.)

This content is everywhere, but if I suggest it get included, I am accused of either original research or non-NPOV. So instead we get a list of home and garden and lawncare type forums. That is just plainly wrong. Stick to the Facts 00:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Also bear in mind - I didn't say I wanted to have the article say that the main theme was genocide - I said that I wanted genocide mentioned because it is arguably the main theme. Even if you don't agree that it's the main theme, you can't deny it is in the top 10 (and I'm being generous.) That is FAR above the home and garden type forums. Stick to the Facts 00:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You're correct Stick to the Facts which is why I'll be putting back the earlier version which was much more WP:NPOV and it's a start. The current version is an attempt to whitewash this forum. You realise every other thread is either about ZOG or Hitler. As for 88 check this post : [www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=2077641&postcount=18] Amoruso 00:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a pressing need for that section. As for these changes, I have no objection. Sounds pretty accurate to me. El_C 01:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of media citations listed to support 'generally regarded as', but I haven't come across any reliable sources to suggest this is just a claim made by critics. Seems like that's the way to go. As for the genocide section-- we have to understand that just perusing through the threads and writing your impression of their content is definitely original research. --Alecmconroy 02:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It is inconceivable to me that you would allow 'generally regarded as' regarding the neo nazi characterization, which is an impression formed by perusing the contents of the forum, but you would not allow it for the 'ethnic cleansing' issue. This is a double standard. I assure you there are more threads titled "ethnic cleansing strategies" etc than there are threads that specifically mention neo-nazis. Methinks you are getting too entrenched into the battle to even consider that there might be a compromise solution that is reasonable. When UberCyrxic was forum shopping for admins to take his side there was at least one that said he wasn't sure there was a problem with my FIRST version - one that even I think was a bit much at this point. Stick to the Facts 02:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I am unable to understand why those passages are acceptable but a brief but factually accurate summary of some forum thread titles and contents pertaining to genocide/"ethnic cleansing" is not. If you don't believe in the existence of the content then just tell me how many articles/whatever you will need to convince you and I'll get them. Neutral point of view does NOT mean inoffensive or that it is not unpleasant. If you really insist I can leave out the legal definition of 'genocide' as set forth in the statutes I cited, although there should be a way of nullifying the 'whitewashing' effect of using the term 'ethnic cleansing.' Stick to the Facts 02:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I only care about you not linking to SF threads and citing reliable sources. We do not need such a high level of detail for individual threads. It's a nazi site, so obviously it's pro-genocide. El_C 03:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You would be REALLY amazed if you went back through this whole discussion page - you are pretty much the second person (after me only) who has acknowledged this. That is all the more reason to include a statement about genocide. I truly believe that most of the SF members don't even know what genocide is. I think they really believe that as long as they don't murder every member of some minority they aren't commiting genocide. They are wrong. Simply forcing them all to move - even if it is just by making life uncomfortable so that they move on their own - is genocide. Merely planning it is punishable under the statute. I'm not saying that anything on the SF forums would amount to PLANNING but it is definitely some serious fantasizing.

There has been a massive sock puppet fiasco going on (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Poison_sf - the evidence and number of people involved is overwhelming.) That is why this article is sooo far off kilter. They were actively recruiting people to redo my edits on the SF website (see the RfCU for links to the evidence.)

Even if it were obvious I don't think that's a reason to leave it out. McDonald's article says it sells hamburgers, I'm guessing. (checking......yep it's in the first sentence.)

With your approval, I'd like to submit some propsals for inclusion. Let me know if you'd like to see proposals including a brief summary and cite to the applicable legal statutes. Thank you, Stick to the Facts 04:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, I invite you to submitt any&all proposals you have in mind. El_C 05:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Added bit per El_C , Stick to the Facts, me... Amoruso 21:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

misc

Putting 'controversial' makes a bad phrase worse. The word 'prominent' should come out too. How is it 'controverial?' The only thing it's ever done was make prank phone calls to a local tv informal viewer's poll. Oh ya, and they tried (unsuccessfully) to take over control of the wiki article about them.

How is it "prominent?" Is William Hung a "prominent" musician? I guarantee you that 100X more people have heard of him than SF. I think both words should come out. Stick to the Facts 04:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Some people need a refresher course in objective journalism and NPOV

While there are clearly some people here who are Stormfront posters and are advocating for their version of this article in their own self interest, there are some others who appear to want to be objective, but in the process are just adding to the non-NPOV.

non-NPOV does NOT mean just splitting the difference between two extremes if one of those extremes more accurately describes the subject matter, even if splitting the difference would produce 'information' that is 'true'. Here are some examples to illustrate:

Apple juice contains both cyanide and water.

Ronand Reagan was both a Republican and a Democrat.

George Washington fought for and against the British.

Joseph Stalin was both nice and mean to Soviet citizens.

Athletes from both the United States and Ghana have won olympic medals.

All of these are true. None of them are neutral or objective. Stick to the Facts 01:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

stick-to, your examples are bull.

No more lazy anti-intellectualism please. Why are they bull? I carefully explained why they are relevant, give us a reason to believe they are not. Show us your power of persuasion. Show your work or you receive no credit for the answer. Stick to the Facts 19:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You are the lazy anti-intellectual. Apple Juice contains no cyanide, it contains Amygdalin.

You know, when you are insulting like this and then it turns out you're wrong, it makes you look especially like an a$$. Amygdalin releases HCN on contact with beta-glucosidase which is released when cell structure is disrupted. There are always trace amounts of cyanide in apple juice. Did you really think I would pick an example that wasn't true? Oh yea, and kudos for zeroing in on the irrelevant incidentals - and then turning out to be wrong. LOL Stick to the Facts 02:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

(Don't take me seriously on this, please...) No, jokes aside, they are not relevant because everyone already knows what you want to tell us. The Problem is not that unless we have some Reliable Source telling us "Stormfront concerns itself with Racism, Fascism and everything else is to be disregarded." we can't write it. The problem is WP:NOR. As you may note the Ronald Reagan article mentions that he was a Democrat and a Republican in the lead. But because there are reliable sources that tell us, we can write "His economic and foreign policies have formed the base of the conservative movement since 1980." I don't dispute that most of the forum members are right-wing nuts and a large percentage are Neo-Nazis. But writing that in this article is s/th different altogether. If you find Reliable Sources talking about "Genocide" being a prevalent theme on Stormfront, i will congratulate you, (virtually) bow down and even add the reference myself. But that is not (as of now) the case. You understand where i'm coming from? I hope so, but can't imagine you listening to a suspected Sock. *g* So, that was careful explanaition enough, i hope. -- ExpImp^{talk con} 23:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It really isn't worth my time tediously trying to make you understand the most basic of concepts. I'm probably going to stop replying to the dumb parts of your comments because it just won't get into your head and I have more important things to do. But I'll indulge you this one last time.

If you don't have a reliable source, and you feel that one is necessary in order for something to be put in the article, then splitting the difference is NOT the best way to go. It can be WORSE to split the difference and say 'the forums have both pro- and anti- hitler posts' because you are implying that neither one outweighs the other. Just like the reagan is a democrat/republican one above - if you can't find a source saying what he did when he was in each party you can't just say he was in both and leave it at that. Same with the apple juice - if you can't find data giving the concentration of cyanide, you can't just say they are both in it without saying something about the relative quantities. That is anti-intellectual and anti-informative. The fact that it is easy to do does not excuse it.

That said, do you really think you'd be going out on a limb by saying it has more pro-hitler content? We have news sites calling it neo nazi.... If you really insist, then it has to come out altogether, but frankly I don't think that de minimis and obvious things need to be anal-retentively picked over (unlike alecmconroy who insists you have to cite 'the sky is blue.') Oh yea and before you insult people, try to educate yourself about the subject matter so you won't look like a total idiot. Stick to the Facts 02:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

My first sentence after the Amygdalin was "(Don't take me seriously on this, please...)" which you generously glossed over. But ok, do what you like, feel insulted if you like, it wasn't meant that way. I'll try to avoid ironic content from now on. I apologize for my stupid comment, it was totally unnecessary. And (as it seems) even factually wrong. So what do you want to do now ? I don't see many possibilites:

1. Leave it as it is (bad)
2. Write that they are all genocidal hitler-lovers, and disregard all criticism based on WP:NOR (bad)
3. splitting the difference (bad)
4. deleting the Article (bad)

And, if you want it in writing, no I don't think that we'd "be going out on a limb by saying it has more pro-hitler content?" But I'm quite sure others do, without giving Reliable Sources for that. If you know any way out of this dilemma, please tell me. Thank you very much.-- ExpImp^talkcon 11:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

First off, this thread gotten a little heated-- we should all try our best to adhere to No personal attacks. I know that's hard sometimes, but we should all work on doing that. If I have contributed to that, I apologize.

On a different subject, Stick-- I think we had a minor miscommunication regarding the sky is blue thing. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer when we spoke about that. I think the discussion of citing "the sky is blue" came up in this comment. I was talking about whether the sentence "Critics accuse Stormfront members of supporting violence, genocide, and ethnic cleansing." belongs in the article. I said I was inclined to include the sentence, since I suspect it's true that critics do have that criticism, but a stricter interpretation would require it to be cited before being included. So, it's not that _I_ personally have that strict an interpreation, but I know many do. And indeed, one of the criticisms that has come up at the peer review is the fact that that exact sentence is uncited. So, when I talked about "the sky is blue", I wasn't trying necessarily trying to describe my own views, but I was trying to emphasize that even though I was leaving the criticism sentence in, I was aware that I was on pretty shaky ground there, having so large a claim left uncited. --Alecmconroy 03:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

but regarding the "forums" section i totally agree with you. the current version only gives the harmless forums, while omitting those in which the "potentially illegal activities" are advocated. Someone (too lazy to find the culprit) deleted the following part from the forum-section:

“ The forums containing the most controversial discussions are entitled Ideology and Philosophy, Culture and Customs , Revisionism, Science, Technology and Race, Youth, Events, Strategy and Tactics, Local and Regional, Advance Scout and Theology. ”

As "controversial" is a no-info-word this should IMHO be reworded to:

“ The forums most stressing the White Nationalist/Racist theme of the site are entitled Ideology and Philosophy, Culture and Customs , Revisionism, Science, Technology and Race, Youth, Events, Strategy and Tactics, Local and Regional, Advance Scout and Theology. ”

But I'm not going to put that in, before i heard some comments...-- ExpImp^{talk con} 15:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, in theory, something nasty can be advocated anywhere. I don't see a lot of difference here. IMO would be most logical to divide into categories such as self-help, real life organizing (forums like Local and Regional, Advance Scout, Events would go there), content authoring (poetry, graphics, multimedia etc), Socializing (Lounge, Talk, Youth) and... I don't know... "ideological" maybe (Ideology and Philosophy, Strategy and Tactics). I'm at a loss where to put something like Revisionism or Science. Poison sf 15:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't get it. The fact that you keep repeating this stuff makes me think that you still have not read the NPOV section - or maybe you just didn't understand it. Wikipedia is *NOT* a forum for advocacy. That is entirely the point. This is NOT stormfront's article. It is an article ABOUT stormfront. Do you get the difference? This is not a plug for a product. Once again, do not take my word for it, please read wikipedia: NPOV and read up on a subject before you spew on and on about it. That wastes everyone's time. You clearly don't value your time but I do. Stick to the Facts 19:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I'm hard pressed to infer any useful suggestions from your rant. I don't see what is especially POV in my version in comparison with the current one. The forums are more logically organized, but my version does not contain any advocacy or anything. Please be more specific if you want to accuse me of seomething Poison sf 17:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, first off, as ExpImp implied, I agree it's absolutely essential for us to talk about stuff before editing. Given the meatpuppet allegations flying around, I suspect trust is a hard thing to come by. And I for one probably won't edit the article in any substantive way until the citation business is cleared up, but because I don't want to be accused that I'm doing an article-wide promotion or whitewashing of stormfront.

I think ExpImp's is an improvement, as "White Nationalism / Racism" always implies controversial, but controversial doesn't necessarily imply much by itself. In general, though, I don't know that listing the forums off the forums is a particularly helpful activity. Except for Revisionism, they all have such innoculous-sounding titles that I don't know their titles really convey anything. And when the forums are listed in Poisons way, the whole forum titles sound no more troubling than a Boy Scout website. Since, of course, the actual site IS a good deal more troubling than the Boy Scouts, I worry that listing off the forums detracts focus from the actual content of the site-- or more than anything, it doesn't really provide us with that much new information.

There is nothing against the express guidelines of wiki in giving more weight to the more important forums. The forums that are only ancillary (ie the home and garden type forums) don't even have to be mentioned at all, necessarily. That's like having an article about the US government and devoting a section to a discussion of office policy in the mail room of the Smithsonian Institute's gift shop. Who cares? That is not the kind of stuff that is important enough to be in an ENCYCLOPEDIA article about the US, and the home and garden forum isn't important enough to be part of an article about SF. It does not capture the essence of what the SF forums are about. They can be mentioned but giving them equal or greater weight than the genocide type issues is just absurd. Stick to the Facts 19:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess I can't stop lamenting that we don't have a good secondary source that has written an article describing what is actually being discussed in these forums. For example, I suspect "Strategy and Tactics" is a good deal more ominous than its sanitized title might imply.

It is. Many of the 'strategies and tactics' involve illegal activities and should be explored in greater detail. And for those SF types - don't flame me and insist they aren't about illegal activities - they are, and the fact that you merely state that they are not does not make it so. Stick to the Facts 19:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should do a peer review-- they might have more ideas on how to improve this, and more eyeballs is always good.

--Alecmconroy 17:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with that. Stick to the Facts 19:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Alecmconroy: Well, sorry if it didn't sound troubling enough, I'm indeed probably not the person to ask to write something troubling, because, as you probably understand, nothing about the subject of the article troubles me. Perhaps, it would be sensible to separate some of the sections that are more ... I don't know.. "ideological" than others, but Explicit's version IMO has flaws because, having such purpose in mind, I don't know why add such forums as Youth and Culture and Customs. Theology is also questionable, from this angle. Poison sf 17:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)