Jump to content

Talk:Stormfront (website)/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Neutrality

I have several concerns about the use of phrases and descriptors in this article, specifically "white supremacist" and "hate site". While the site is most likely a wretched hive and scum of villiany, we cannot make that statement for ourselves - doing so violates NPOV more than weasel words. We should instead attribute the claims to who have said them, and give them a bit of context - for example, the site's pro-Nazi ideology caused delisting on Google France and Germany and banning in North Rhine-Westphalia (where it is illegal). Sceptre (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that's fine, but we can still state fact as fact, especially facts so well-sourced as this one. Jayjg (talk) 02:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the term is "neo-nazi", not "pro-nazi". If you wish to expand on the issue, I don't object to that. What I object to is the use of weasel words which imply incorrectness to the most mainstream opinion of the website (i.e. "labellings"). YahelGuhan (talk) 04:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The term given in both stories about the blocking is "pro-Nazi". Might be synonymous, and it looks like it is. As regards to the use of the terms in themselves, how does this sound?

Stormfront is a controversial white nationalist forum. Several scholars, interest groups, and news agencies, including the Anti-Defamation League, Southern Poverty Law Center. BBC, CNN, New York Times, and TIME magazine have asserted the website contains white supremacist content, and consider it to be the "Internet's first hate site".

Thanks, Sceptre (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
OK fine. We'll keep pro-nazi. I have a problem with calling it a "nationalist" rather than "supremacist" forum. There is a big long discussion in the archives I wish not to repeat on that. How about "Stormfront is an internet forum notable for its white supremacist content, accoriding to several scholars, interest groups, and news agencies, including the Anti-Defamation League, Southern Poverty Law Center, BBC, CNN, New York Times, TIME magazine, and various others. It has been considered to be the "Internet's first hate site."" YahelGuhan (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on [1], can I add the following:

"Black has long been an advocate for mainstreaming the white supremacist movement, and his preferred medium is the internet, specificly stormfront. Muted tones of rhetoric, including discouragement of racial slurs, and the prohibition of violent threats and describing anything illegal, and other standard community-building techniques, have been effective for stormfront. Black has expressed his vision about his online community building, in that he constructed stormfront as a community with the purpose of "defending the white race"

YahelGuhan (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think my main problem with the term "supremacist" is that our article on the term explicitly calls it racist (which is a word we need to avoid). Though your proposal looks okay, to be honest, with a few grammar fixes. Sceptre (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The preferred term among those it applies to is "white nationalist". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The new lede is problematic. First of all, "controversial" is a characterization, and not a very useful one; there's no particular controversy - they're unabashedly white nationalist, abashedly white supremacist, and obviously Nazi-ish. But it's not a controversial site, just a despised one. "Several scholars, interest groups, and news agencies ..." aren't well sourced as all considering it the "Internet's first hate site". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    I've done a rewrite, but the term "controversial", I agree, is a bit iffy. If we're getting into what "controversy" really means (ie something where people actually disagree, instead of how its sometimes used as a synonym for "widespread admonishment"), what the site is is actually a matter of dispute: white nationalist vs. white supremacist; and I think will be until the two terms are clearly defined. Sceptre (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I've spent some time dealing with this issue. As far as I can tell "WN" and "WS" refer to the same groups and ideology. It's just that proponents prefer one term while opponents prefer the other. (Proponents will argue that the terms mean different things, but they can't point to anyone who is WS in their view.) For neutrality and editing purposes it's better to say that "they are WN and are called WS by others." If we flat out say they're "WS" it will be changed to "WN" by proponents. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's one of the problems - what white nationalism is. As it's the less inflammatory descriptor and usually self-applied, I believe that, in the interests of avoiding unnecessary harm to living people, we should go with that and attribute the supremacist claim to others. Sceptre (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the lead again, removing most of the weasel words (e.g. "controversial") and original research (e.g. "Several scholars, interest groups, and news agencies"). It is widely viewed as a white supremacist site, it is reliably sourced as being the internet's first hate site, and there don't appear to be reliable sources stating otherwise. Jayjg (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
And by that you're introducing NPOV violations by including definitive statement - attributing opinions is better than stating them as fact (and calling something a "hate site" nearly always is - for example, the term "facsist" is nearly always applied by opponents (I say "nearly", q.v. Adam Susan) - and I doubt people would be so quick to label themselves as a hate site). Although I do agree the word "controversial" doesn't add much, but there is controversy over pride vs survival vs supremacism vs nationalism, if the terms are not interchangeable. Sceptre (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
But there are dozens of reliable sources that say it is a "white supremacist" site, and I don't know of any that say it is not. Do you? If so, why do you insist on including weasel words instead? Jayjg (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Because, per NPOV, we cannot definitively label something with pejorative terms. And WP:WEASEL forbids saying "Many people", not "Many people, such as X, Y, and Z". Sceptre (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you've properly understood WP:NPOV. Please quote the section you think applies. Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:ASF. Sceptre (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
And regarding what do you think there is a "serious dispute"? Jayjg (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
You may be reading the wrong line and placing too much weight on it. I'm saying, "hate site" is a perojative term and is ultimately an opinion. We should attribute, not assert opinions. Sceptre (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
In what way were your edits related to that point? Jayjg (talk) 01:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I object to the section about discouraging racial slurs and promoting violence, since both occur on stormfront in nearly every thread.

Moving forward

Can we resolve this neutrality review amongst ourselves or need we move further along with mediation, perhaps to WP:NPOVN? I'd like to see the ugly banner come down from the article, but not before any outstanding POV issues are addressed of course. Skomorokh 12:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think getting NPOVN in to have an uninvolved look is the best way, yes. Sceptre (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you could articulate any current concerns you have with the article. Jayjg (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Jay's request is reasonable, given the development of the article in recent weeks. It looks like it's Wikipedia policy, rather than this article specifically that the neutrality issue is with ."Should we call people/orgs nasty names they reject if mainstream sources do so?" I would agree with Sceptre that we should not do so, but policy disagrees, so I don't see how the article can have its npov balanced unless policy is changed. I'll remove the tag within a week unless npov issues that are resolvable are outlined here. Regards, Skomorokh 14:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

A week later, no action, so removed. NPOV will be assumed until someone argues otherwise. Skomorokh 14:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think NPOV would require that Stormfront be described as a "White Nationalist" site. The dominant ideology on the site is white separatism and ethnic preservation, not any sort of dominance. There is a nearly ubiquitous opposition to multi-ethnic or multicultural societies. If media groups refer to the group as "White Supremacist," then that can be noted and cited, but the term is not an accurate description of the site's overall ideology, or the self-described ideology of most of the members whose posts I've read. David A. (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Can you provide a reliable source that describes them in this fashion? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
    • J.P., finding a cite is no problem;[2][3][4][5][6][7]. The issue is that the "reliable sources" i.e. mainstream sources which refer to it as WS outnumber those than refer to it as WN by orders of magnitude. Would everyone be happy with something like "Stromfront is a white nationalistnote/white supremacistnote website"? Skomorokh 13:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Eew. (That's just personal; I hate X/Y (male/female, dog/cat, apples/oranges) as a construct.) You're right about the undue weight. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Fair enough, but what do you recommend in its stead? The way I see it, we have three factors to incorporate:
          1. The subject identifies as WN
          2. The reliable sources support both WN and WS
          3. A lot more reliable sources seem to use WS
        • Which gives us (at least) three ways of describing the subject in the lede: "Stormfront is a self-identified WN website. It is widely considered WS.", "Stormfront is a WS website. It identifies as WN", "Stormfront is a WN or WS website". Thoughts? Skomorokh 14:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, let's see. It's not an either-or; at least according to White nationalism, an unreliable source of course, WS is a subset of WN. So it's not incorrect for a source to refer to them as WN; they're just not being sufficiently precise. I'd think we could use the more precise terminology. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem was that I thinking of the historic meaning of WS (i.e. the KKK during Reconstruction and Civil Rights eras) as a movement of political dominance over other races. The wikipedia entry for WS includes my strict usage of the term, but broadens it to any ideology that asserts white superiority. It is not clear if a belief that whites are superior in certain areas is sufficient to be WS, or if the belief in white superiority must be absolute. My concern is that the term is somewhat nebulous. We need to report the fact that many sources describe SF as a WS organization, and cite that. However I'm very uncomfortable about ignoring the self-description of a subject in favor of a term that has an unclear definition and strong negative connotations in the popular media. David A. (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's where the undue weight issues come in. ("White nationalism" doesn't exactly have positive connotations either, though.) We don't give extra weight to self-descriptions. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, we did give extra weight to self-descriptions, as you might recall (previous discussion) until that was changed because of this very page. I like that our Adolf Hitler article doesn't start out "Adolf Hitler was an evil genocidal dictator", but rather "Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician who … led the Nazi Party.", even though I'm sure an abundance of RS's would support the former. The Hitler lede doesn't mention the nasty adventures the chap got up to til a few paragraphs on. I'd like to see the same thing done here; no whitewash (ecxuse the pun), just a change in emphasis. Skomorokh 13:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I do agree on principle; I was seeing trees rather than forest here. In general, I dislike characterizations in lead sentences; I think I would prefer to see a structure here like "{subject} is an Internet forum. It is one of the earliest blah blah, and has been labelled the first hate site blah blah. It has been described as white supremacist by blah blah" - if it's even important to draw that distinction in the lede at all; "white nationalist" is sufficiently unpleasant that it's hardly a whitewash to leave it at that, until perhaps an argument for the supremacist label can be put into the "views and topics" section. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought I understood the purpose of undue weight, but I don't see how it can absolve wikipedia from reporting the essential facts about an organization, which presumably would include its self-described purpose. Perhaps we could state that "SF describes itself as..." and "Many media sources describe it as..." David A. (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

A member speaks

I have been a member of stormfront since I was in highschool and this wikidescription is grieviously inaccurate. It is a forum where people discuss white existence. It contains an great deal of freedom of expression and thousands upon thousands of different veiws. Is the US a "hate country" because some population somewhere calls themself, for some reason, a neo-nazi. Is Israel a "hate country" because some Israeli somewhere, or just some Jew somewhere, wants to kill Palestinians? No, a country or a forum with thousands of members should be taken on general terms, especially when the forum allows for freedom of expression. It is doubtful that when one types in Jews on wikipedia it reads "hateful demonic, evil things that lack souls". Someone who is Jewish might seek to edit the wikidescription of Jews if the above defination was in use. Who is maintaining this misrepresentation of what is a white existence site, which even allows a great deal of freedom of expression? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.252.4 (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly something to keep in mind is that Wikipedia does not accept original thought or research. So while you might have some experience with the Stormfront community that is not enough without other sources, though it may be valuable. In that same sense calling a nation a "hate country" by ones own original thought is not considered a proper source. As for whether Stormfront community should be called directly a hate site or neo-nazi, I don't believe there is a strong enough uncontroversial consensus, self-identification of it's members nor an unambiguous definition that can be applied objectively. However the site does receive enough attention from large, popular and varied media sources, as a "hate site" to perhaps warrant acknowledgement. This isn't acknowledgement that Stomrfront is a hate site. Rather it is an acknowledgement of views portrayed by the media. As for the backgrounds of those who maintain these articles, it isn't really that relevant. In fact I think you could be surprised. If you are dismissing a group of peoples views due to affiliation you would be stepping close to personal attack territory, a no-no. If you have a specific issue with a specific article it is better to argue it on point rather than on person. However if you must know the backgrounds of those who edit, I'd guess they are mostly formally educated, technically inclined, 15-49 years old white male from a developed majority-Christian country employed as an intellectual rather than a labourer. That is the norm here.Meok (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

National Alliance mention

The lede of the article contains, in isolation, the following line:

Shortly after Black launched Stormfront, the National Alliance registered domain names for its site starting in July 1995.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to the topic given a lack of referenced relationship between Stormfront and the National Alliance. It would seem just as (ir)relevant to say the NAACP or Amnesty started a website at a similar time. Not being American I don't know much about the "National Alliance", but this seems to be hinting at a causal relationship between the establishing of the respective websites, where the article expresses none. If there is no objection, I will remove the line. Skomorokh 20:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Skomorokh 23:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Threats

I'd like to bring your attention to this, which was recently posted on anarchism.net. It says as follows: "u sent an anarchist to attack us on wikipedia u will pay 4 that we will show no mercy 4 u scum we wll destroy all of u skomoroh most of all" I am somewhat worried about this. First of all, I think this may count as off-wiki canvassing. Secondly, the fact that threats are being thrown around is somewhat unsettling. Let's try to keep this to a minimum. Zazaban (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I figured since it is about this article it may be relevant. Zazaban (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
[www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/wikipedia-article-stormfront-493258.html This] Stormfront thread appears to be the source. Their comparison of our various ethnic pride articles is somewhat embarrassing. Skomorokh 00:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
It will be a peculiar day in the universe when we give a rat's ass what Stormfront denizens think of anything. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
With due respect for ignoratio elenchi, of course. Skomorokh 01:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
This sounds like a pathetic attempt to smear the Stormfront.org page with a blatant troll, as well as bring attention to the linked website.

white supremacist is used by communists to fabricate victimization. nobady on stormfront is going to call himself this. it is definitely not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofokles1101 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Lede

If someone can find a section for/otherwise remove the David Duke material from the lead section, we can write a proper summary of the article as a lede. Issues of neutrality aside, the article is now quite well-referenced and reasonably comprehensive, and I think it would stand a decent chance at GA status. Anyone willing to help? Skomorokh 12:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I find this request baffling. The lede used to discuss the origins of the Website, who started it (Don Black) etc. You're the one who changed it to be all about David Duke.[8] Are you asking us to revert back in the more relevant and useful material? Jayjg (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Baffling? Have you never expanded an article from a stub before? On Wikipedia, ledes are not for discussing the origins of things; they are for summarizing the content of the body of the article. I didn't "change it to be all about David Duke", I found appropriate sections for the rest of the material. My request here is that someone help find a section for the Duke material so that a summary can be written as appropriate. Are you interested in helping? Skomorokh 12:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Stub? The article wasn't a stub when you got here; and the Duke material doesn't belong anywhere near the lede. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say it was a stub, and I have already stated that I believe the Duke material should be removed from the lede. You could have saved both our time by replying simply "No, I don't wish to help you". Regards, Skomorokh 11:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
It was 14k before you started editing. I've restored the actually relevant material to the lede, per your request, and cleaned up some non-standard and rather bizarre looking footnoting too. Jayjg (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You duplicated rather than summarized, and included references in the lede where their use is frowned upon (typically except in the case of footnotes). Please don't take it personally if I refactor the material as a summary of the body of the article. Sincerely, Skomorokh 11:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The lede should summarize the article, and where on earth did you get the notion that references were "frowned upon" in the lede? Jayjg (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Ahem...FAC. The issue is moot given the current summary. Regards, Skomorokh 00:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I've read WP:FAC, and don't see anything in there about references being "frowned upon" in the lede. It does refer to WP:LEAD, which says the lead should be "should be carefully sourced as appropriate". Can you show me the exact words that say references are "frowned upon" in the lede? Jayjg (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I moved that massive reference out of the lead for a reason: because the lead section was effectively uneditable for all the clutter. Sceptre (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Separating the footnotes from the referencing is standard practice in cases such as these. Skomorokh 11:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there some new guideline that recommends this? Jayjg (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
With quality articles generally, footnotes (i.e. comments which clarify the text) and references (straight up {{cite journal}} etc.; academic bibliography) are kept separate due to their obviously disparate semantic construction. It is not unheard of to have Footnotes, References and Sources sections in some FA's. Skomorokh 00:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any guideline suggesting this as good practice; can you point one out to me that specifically suggests this? Jayjg (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Common sense if anything. This allows the lede to be edited easier. Sceptre (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see, so rather than being a matter of policy, or even guideline, it's just a personal preference. Jayjg (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
No, common sense isn't synonymous with personal preference. The group of references takes up two heights of the edit "box" on a 1440*900. That makes it hard for people to edit. The reorganisation makes it easier. Sceptre (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
You're right, they're not synonymous. That's why I used the term "personal preference". In any event, it doesn't appear that Skomorokh is prepared to back up his claims, so they're moot for now. Jayjg (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the lack of interest, I'm moving the Duke material here until someone can find an appropriate section for it: Stormfront works closely with David Duke,[1] who uses his account on Stormfront to post articles from his own website, as well as polling forum members for opinions and questions; in particular during his Internet broadcasts. Duke has worked with Black on numerous projects including Operation Red Dog in 1980, a planned invasion of Dominica.[2][3][dead link] I've written a lede as summary of the article, in accordance with the Manual of Style. Skomorokh 11:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stormfront (website)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Lead
  • "ideology and philosophy, historical revisionism and self-defense." the first and suggest "ideology and philosophy" is one single theme, yet they are independently wikilinked. Why?
  • "Notable for the white supremacist views of its members," Is notable correct? Or should it be "noted"?
Views and topics
  • "a characterization that is contested by Don Black as an inaccurate description of most people active in Stormfront." It might be worth adding his own description in here to add more balance.
  • "It is organized primarily as a discussion forum with multiple thematic sub-forums (54 in total)" I don't like the use of brackets particularly. I think if it's worthy of inclusion, it should be in normal text. This is possibly a borderline case, but I might suggest trying to re-word to lose the brackets.
  • Why are the sub-fora capitalised? Why do some have ' ' quote marks?
  • Difference of style between "sub-fora" "subforums" and "sub-forums". Pick one and be consistent.
  • "[h]etrosexual" Is this correct? Should be heterosexual?
Character
  • "A major function of the site for Black is "to provide a pro-white counterpoint to the mainstream media,"[17] – which rarely covers white separatism," why the dash?
News coverage
  • Should CNet News be italicised?
  • This might just be me but what's a "segregated prom"?
  • "kids" is very informal. Should be children unless in quotes.
General
  • Make sure all numerals and units, e.g. 4,000 comments are split by non-breaking spaces, e.g. 4,000 . I've already done that one, and spotted over nbsps, but after seeing the first, I haven't really checked.

There's nothing major to do, so I'll put it on hold for the time being. I'd just like to say that the lead and general prose is very good. Well done. Peanut4 (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Done them all except for the numbers - could you help? - and the CNet News part (it shouldn't be capitalised because it's a website). I think the fora are capitalised because they're names, and a segregated prom is, well, a prom that is segregated (racially, in this case). Sceptre (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Some replies
  • "Notable for the white supremacist views of its members," Is notable correct? Or should it be "noted"?" I don't understand why you removed this entirely?
  • Still a difference of style between "sub-fora" and "subfora". Pick one and be consistent.
  • You changed "[h]etrosexual" to hetrosexual. My concern was not with the [h] but the lack of an e, i.e. should be heterosexual.

You weren't down as the GA nominator. Is it you dealing with the GAN or is it Skomorroh? Peanut4 (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll help with the article; I have it on watchlist. Sceptre (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I just figured "hetrosexual" was a Wikipedia typo, so I fixed it. If it is supposed to be misspelled, we need a "sic" and a source. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yo Peanut4, thanks for taking the time to review. I am nominally responsible for the GAN, but it looks like Sceptre and JP have everything covered. Is there anything else you'd like to see addressed? Skomorokh 11:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Before I go on to pass it, I want to make sure you are happy with the edits already made, particularly the changes related to the following points:
  • "Notable for the white supremacist views of its members," Is notable correct? Or should it be "noted"?" I don't understand why you removed this entirely?
  • You changed "[h]etrosexual" to hetrosexual. My concern was not with the [h] but the lack of an e, i.e. should be heterosexual.
I will however, keep it on hold, following the recent edit war and messages on the talk page.
While that is the case, are there any more controversies about the website. It's clearly a heated, controversial topic, but apart from the removal of the website from Google and the news coverage, there seems little to say so. Peanut4 (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding hetro/hetero, this was a trivial misspelling on my part. The quote was with a captial H in the source, hence the [h]; otherwise this is a non-issue. The sources say that Stormfront is a white supremacist site, not that it is notable for the white supremacist views of its members, afaik. If there is a reference for this specific claim, that's great; if not (as is currently the case), we should leave it out as contentious unverified content. The editing disputes do not relate to this page primarily. The issue in question is one of policy; how should neutrality be weighed against mainstream opinion; the current version of the article is in line with policy (though I personally, and perhaps Sceptre would prefer less mainstream POV). It would not be proper to penalise the article for compliance with policy, I think. In short, I do not see any obstacle to GA status at present. Regards, Skomorokh 00:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    Minor content dispute about whether this is a racist website or not.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Peanut4 (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for your time, effort and patience. :) Skomorokh 00:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

'Engineering and technology'?

Why was this article classified as an 'Engineering and technology good article'? It's a website, yes, but surely the medium is secondary to the content. – SJL 03:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I nominated it under "Computing" because that's where WP:GAN says websites should go. It's currently listed in "Websites and the Internet" in the Engineering/Tech section of WP:GA.
Some of the following might be better:
From "Social sciences and society":
  • Cultural phenomena, movements and subcultures
  • Internet culture
  • Organizations
"Politics and government":
  • Political parties and movements
It looks like some websites (Wikipedia, Youtube, Citizendium) are in "Internet culture", while the rest are in "Websites and the Internet". Skomorokh 11:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this might fit best as "cultural phenomena". That it's a website is pretty much the least notable aspect of Stormfront. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you think the article ought to be moved from Stormfront (website) then? To Stormfront.org or Stormfront White Nationalist Community perhaps? Skomorokh 15:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Either of those might make sense. The longer one is probably better, since it's their official name. Of course, people looking for it are simply going to type "Stormfront" and get to the disambiguation page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

White supremacy?

The forum is labeled "white supremacist" when in fact, the forum is white nationalist. They do not state that the white race is superior, but they do endorse a white-only nation. 129.71.73.243 (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Q.E.D. Jayjg (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)}}
See prior discussions at Talk:Stormfront_(website)/Archive_6#Neutrality, etc. Sceptre has been blocked. John Nevard (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the OP, but the sources don't. End of story. the skomorokh 13:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

This news just in

Stormfront have enabled mandatory registration in order to view the forum after a massive traffic overload after Obama was elected. I don't have an account, so I don't know what's going on there, but I think it's very, very bad. Avnas Ishtaroth drop me a line 07:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, any coverage in the media/blogosphere? the skomorokh 20:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't on the news. I don't think it experienced more traffic after Obama's win. If it did I'd think Don Imus would want it. I've seen it after Obama's election. They seem to be arguing he's successful because he's "part white" YVNP (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Straws; clutching at... what a hoot! So the above is entirely unsourced? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, see this:

"One of the most popular white supremacist Web sites got more than 2,000 new members the day after the election, compared with 91 new members on Election Day, according to an AP count. The site, stormfront.org, was temporarily off-line Nov. 5 because of the overwhelming amount of activity it received after Election Day. On Saturday, one Stormfront poster, identified as Dalderian Germanicus, of North Las Vegas, said, 'I want the SOB laid out in a box to see how 'messiahs' come to rest. God has abandoned us, this country is doomed.'"

So though I'm not sure about the registration thing, activity did apparently jump after the election. --V2Blast (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I checked the site and it's open again. If someone wants to add the material from the Yahoo news page that'd be appropriate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
And it's closed again. It's apparently intermittent. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice work chaps, I've added it to the History section. Regards, the skomorokh 13:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"Neo-Nazi" again

This article has been added to the category Category:Neo-Nazi websites. As the only identification of Stormfront as "Neo-Nazi" is Bill O'Reilly, who is not a neutral and reliable source of information, this category does not belong in the article in its current state. Per WP:BURDEN, I'll remove it tomorrow if this state persists. Skomorokh 20:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we should include the category, based on the arguments on OrangeMarlin's talk page. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
There are many sources that have called the website "neo-nazi". Among others are the Village Voice.[9], The Jewish Journal,[10] and the district government of Dusseldorf.[11] I'm sure there are plenty more. Further, they have a history of posting nazi-related graphics in sysop-controlled pages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The Register article refers to Stormfront.com, a different website. I'm not familiar with the other two publications; are they reliable sources? For a designation of such weight, it would be much better to have more than a passing mention (see white supremacy discussion and footnote). Appreciate the research, Skomorokh 02:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The Register article is a great example of their incompetence. German sources do, indeed, describe Stormfront.org as a Nazi/Neo-Nazi website that the Dusseldorf government has banned.[12] Nevard (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I wonder what the folks at http://www.stormfront.com/ think about their namesake. That must lead to some confusion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing any more... Nevard (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • A SICK Nazi website has unleashed a tirade of hate at Irish Olympic boxing hero Darren Sutherland. The 26-year-old bronze medallist, whose dad is from the Caribbean, has been labelled a "mongrel" and "half-breed" by brainless racists on the Stormfront website.
    • "Darren's targeted by nazis" Danny Conlon. News of the World. London (UK): Aug 24, 2008. pg. 7
  • In recent months Black has toned down the Web site, banning many symbols of Nazism that formerly were common on the site, including swastikas, lightning bolts and the number 88. The letter H is the eighth letter of the alphabet, and among supremacists 88 stands for "Heil, Hitler." He also eliminated the N-word, Potok notes. According to Kreis of Aryan Nations, Black has not explained why he did so, "but he has ticked off a lot of people" in white power circles. Potok says he believes the changes are purely cosmetic. "This is not a change of philosophy on Black's part," Potok said. "This is a public relations move to make the Web site seem less drastic, to try and draw more people in right now during the presidential campaign. His beliefs are still fundamentally neo-Nazi. If you listen to the content, you'll hear it."
    • "LOCAL ORGANIZER, OTHER SUPREMACISTS SAY OBAMA'S RUN BOOSTS THEIR CAUSE" JOHN LANTIGUA. Palm Beach Post. West Palm Beach, Fla.: Jul 27, 2008. pg. A.1
      • The Neo-Nazi identification here seems to be "Potok"'s opinion rather than the reporting of the Palm Beach Post; any reason this Potok individual should be considered an RS? Skomorokh 12:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Mr. Warman continued to scour the Internet for Canadian hatemongers, finding many at a U.S. neo-Nazi site called Stormfront, whose web forum has a Canadian section. "It's almost like moths to a flame," he says. "They can't avoid it."
    • "One man's war on Internet hate; He calls himself more 'Aryan' than the hatemongers he chases, but Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman has become the bete noire of Canada's neo-Nazis, writes Don Butler.;" Don Butler. The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa, Ont.: Jul 11, 2007. pg. A.1
  • Held for bail hearing. Ile Perrot man visited neo-Nazi websites, posted photos with guns...At other websites, Emard posted photos of himself posing with weapons and making a salute used by the Nazis in Germany before and during the Second World War. He is believed to have posted comments at www.stormfront.org more than 300 times since October 2005.
    • "Threats suspect fond of hate sites:; [Final Edition]" PAUL CHERRY and MICHELLE LALONDE. The Gazette. Montreal, Que.: Oct 7, 2006. pg. A.9
  • Text of report by Belgrade-based B-92 TV on 22 February
  • [Presenter] A list of Jews living in Serbia has appeared on a US Nazi site, in its forum in Serbian.
  • [Reporter] Participants in the forum on the stormfront.org site say only a dead Jew is a good Jew.
    • "List of Jews living in Serbia appears on US Nazi site" BBC Monitoring European. London: Feb 23, 2005. pg. 1

These are just a few of the sources I've found in Proquest. There are numerous reliable sources that label this a "nazi" or "neo-nazi" site. While we certainly should be cautious in using such a label, it appears well-justified in this case. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I've no doubt that we could rack up an impressive list of RS' that mention Stormfront in passing as "Neo-Nazi"; but that is precisely the sort of superficial analysis that has plagued the attempt at serious, in-depth coverage of this topic. I have not found one that attempted to justify the label or even discuss why it is being used. Ascribing ideologies to internet fora is a dubious notion to begin with – to tar the heterogeneous beliefs and attitudes of all the Stormfront users as Neo-Nazi seems doomed to inaccuracy to begin with, akin to categorising the Wikipedia article as "Amateur enecylopaedias". I'd like to try to put a section on Stormfront's reputed white supremacy and Neo-Nazism in the article, but so far we have no serious analysis of the appropriety of attributing these beliefs. By using throwaway adjectives instead of detailed analysis, we run the risk of endorsing mainstream POV rather than NPOV. Skomorokh 12:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
This group and "neo-nazi" appear to fit like hand and glove. Here's an article on their own site calling them so [[www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=282679]] here's a report from a left-wing group calling them so [[13]] here's a thread on a high traffic right-wing blog where they're called neo-nazi (redacted link to the freepers because of some spam filter) here's an article from the Canberra Times calling stormfront neo-nazi (via a blog, but the full text of the news article is there [[14]] here's an article where the group defends itself from everybody elses opinion that they're neo-nazis [[15]] and on and on. Also, isn't the founder a former grand kookle/pooh bah/whatever of the KKK? If some sort of weird, twisted radical skepticism (this is not in fact a hand i see before me) can be used to deny labelling this group neo-nazi, might as well do away with the term altogether.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Your first link is a forum post - I don't think anyone is denying that some members of Stormfront are (self-identified) Neo-Nazis; the claim is that the webiste itself is Neo-Nazi. Left-wing groups and right-wing bloggers are not the sort of reliable sources we are looking for. The Canberra Times ref is the sort of fleeting mention discussed above, I think Black is a former member of the KKK but that is not substantiated here nor does it speak directly to the Neo-Nazism of Stormfront, and the last article is a good example of why we ought to be careful here. Radical skepticism is an inadequate description, because there are standards of evidence that are acceptable for the verification of claims; detailed in WP:V. Exceptional claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community require a high level of sourcing. I'd settle for a collection of fleeting mentions (as in the white supremacy footnote), but quality scholarly analysis would be far more preferable. Thanks for weighing in, Skomorokh 16:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Skomorokh, you've gone through and described some of these refs as fleeting, but they're short because I only excerpted a few lines. I think there is sufficient evidence to use this label. Do you know of any evidence to the contrary, to show that anyone connected to Stormfront denies it being a neo-nazi forum? Black himself has been connected with neo-nazi groups, so I doubt he'd deny it. If there's plenty of evidence that it is, and no one saying that it isn't then we don't need to argue at length. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Absence of evidence to the negative is no indication of evidence to the positive; your attitude seems to be one of "well, there's some indication that it is, and no indication it's not, so on balance it's fine to say it is". That simply does not fly for a highly controversial label for a highly marginalized group. I am not contesting the inclusion of the category now that (admittedly flimsy) references have been added, I simply feel that it is not informative to our readers, because all we can say about the issue is "Stormfront is a Neo-Nazi website" rather than provide a paragraph that goes into proper analysis of Stormfront's relation to Neo-Nazism. Without context, "Neo-Nazi website" serves only as a term of abuse rather than an informative appellation. Did any of the reliable sources you've come across go into any detail on the Neo-Nazi claim? Skomorokh 18:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Your argument would only be meaningful if those making the claim were themselves fringe sources. In other words, if only fringe left-wingers considered Stormfront to be a Neo-Nazi website, then it could just be that nobody takes the claim seriously enough to refute it. But that's obviously not the case here - mainstream, respected sources refer to them that way. You are simply choosing to ignore them because you don't like them. --B (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring anything; please assume good faith. I don't think left-wing watchdog groups, Jewish-interest newspapers and tabloids are acceptable neutral reliable sources for the claim that Stormfront is a Neo-Nazi website; I am also concerned at the lack of any detailed analysis or justification in the reliable sources (such as the academic paper and the Ottawa Citizen and Daily Telegraph articles) provided. I don't care if Stormfront is neo-Nazi, neo-cannibal or neo-angelic, I care that the Wikipedia article about it is comprehensive, neutral and accurate, and I don't think the cavalier attitude shown in this discussion is a step towards the that goal. Skomorokh 18:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Skomorokh, you seem to be moving the goalpost. Certainly Bill Reilly isn't a reliable source for anything more than his own opinion. But mainstream newspapers, the SPLC, the ADL, etc, can all be regarded as reliable sources for this article. And yes, even passing mentions of the site as being "neo-nazi" are acceptable. There is nothing remarkable about calling this site "neo-nazi" - the founder has a neo-nazi history, they have hosted neo-nazi content and imagery, the members espouse neo-nazi concepts and use nazi-like avatars and usernames, etc. No one disputes that it is a neo-nazi website. We have sources from many countries and three continents. Continuing to argue this point eventually becomes tendentious. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Which goalposts are being moved? While mainstream newspapers are usually reliable (not having an agenda), SPLC/ADL etc. are certainly not neutral and should not be used to support statement of fact. Neither am I objecting to the number of sources, and the list below does little to further the improvement of the article. I have not disupted that the category ought to apply, only that it ought not in the absence of reliable sources (and I have not removed the category since a referenced claim was added). What is acceptable per conventions (as in the white supremacist/first hate site issue) is a convincing collection of non-partisan reliable sources such as scholarly studies and non-partisan newspapers which we can add as reflecting mainstream consensus on this issue. What is more desirable is proper coverage of the issue in such sources to do the topic justice. At present, we now have three abusive labels ("white supremacist", "hate site" and "Neo-Nazi") rejected by the subject(s) of the article which are not investigated or explained in any way. Reading the article it is not at all clear from the facts that Stormfront is primarily hateful, Nazi or supremacist. By namecalling without support we are effectively making the reader's minds up for them. That is a derisory attitude for an encyclopaedia to adopt. I'm trying to build this article into something that will meet WP:FA?, and the vast majority of input from other editors (with notable exceptions) is to war over particular puerile identifications. Skomorokh 20:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
What source do we have for Stormfront "rejecting" the neo-nazi label? If the article doesn't include material on their neo-nazi elements then we need to improve the article. If it passed GA without that information then it may be time for a review, because it would be incomplete. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Bali ultimate pointed it out above:[16]. I'm not suggesting that this is a reliable source by WP standards, but it does indicate the problems with using fleeting identifications. I strongly agree that the article needs more content on Stormfront's Neo-Nazism, though I don't think the absence of such is enough to merit a GAR as I've yet to be convinced by the sources that it's a major aspect of the topic. Skomorokh 20:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
We have 18 sources that directly call this a neo nazi website, yet you don't think that's a major aspect of the topic? You reject numerous reliable sources because an admittedly unreliable source makes a passing, unattributed assertion that users reject the label? Let me quote you from July: "yup, one person writes a book is good enough unless someone else writes something contradicting them".[17] We don't have a single proper source for anyone actually connected to the site rejecting the label. I see you've removed the category at least five times.[18][19][20][21][22] Given the ample sourcing, I expect that it won't be removed again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
You're misrepresenting my position completely. In each instance of removing that category it was explicitly for the reason that it was not supported by reliable sources in the article. I consider The Guardian, The Ottawa Citizen, The Daily Telegraph and the Zhou et al article sufficient support for the inclusion of the Neo-Nazi attribution according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, just as I considered the book you mention acceptable for the claim it supports (though note that that claim was not a value-free labelling, and that the book in question is a far more credible source than random newspaper articles). I also consider adding labels liberally without explanation or justification poor scholarship—specifically when the subject rejects the label (cf. "white supremacist")—and Wikipedia policies and guidelines deficient in this respect. Large numbers of sources referring to Stormfront as Neo-Nazi no more makes Neo-Nazism a major aspect of the topic than large numbers of sources referring to Mother Teresa as female mean that identification is worthy of major discussion in the article. Frankly, I am quite tired of defending this article against every passing editor with a personal axe to grind, and spending most of this talkpage discussing pov-wording rather than the improvement of the article. Skomorokh 21:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
This article will require "defending" as long as it's here. That's been the case from the beginning. Some years back the crew at Stormfront tried to organize to "correct the errors" in Wikipedia, which led Jimbo Wales to say that we'd change whatever rules were necessary to keep them from taking over. So there's a long history here. Anyway, is this matter settled now or is there still any dispute over this categorization? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
No, there hasn't been a dispute over the categorisation since the referenced claim was initially added. I'd like to replace some of the sources cited with those I mentioned above, but what with the threat of permanent banning and all I'll refrain for now. If you have come across discussion of the Neo-Nazism in one of the definitely reliable sources, it would be great to include it. If you have the time and inclination, input would be appreciated in the sections below this one. Thanks for your patience, Skomorokh 22:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad that's settled. I still don't understand how this article got to GA status while excluding such a prominent part of the subject's notability. Omitting it meant that the article failed item #3a on the Good Article criteria. Perhaps the sources should be doubled-checked to make sure that all significant points of view are included, as required by WP:NPOV. I'll check back in a month to see if we've been able to satisfy that item. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Peanut4 (talk · contribs) was the reviewer; you may want to take it up with them. All the content I added was taken with minimal alteration/interpretation from the references—in most cases it was a case of trying to pick morsels of mentions of Stormfront out of articles on broader topics rather than picking and choosing which perspectives to take from each source. I obviously have not come across much discussing Neo-Nazism, and there do not seem to be any other editors heavily active in editing the article at present, so I'm not sure whether waiting a month will achieve anything. If you're convinced 3a is an issue, then I would say the best thing to do would be to put it up for WP:GAR now. It might be worth bearing in mind this related discussion regarding what ought to be covered vs. what can. Regards, Skomorokh 23:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
If the editors who prepared this for GA didn't come across the eighteen sources isted below, and thus didn't find much discussion of the neo-nazi characterizations of the subject, then there seems to be a failure to do proper research. I'm not in a hurry to do a GA review, and it'd be better to address the identified problem and thus avoid it entirely. Let's see how it looks in a month. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Well Will, it seems as if you're the only one here with access to the below sources, so I'm not sure what help I can be. If there's something freely accessible online you think ought to be included, drop me a link and I'll try to integrate it. Skomorokh 00:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
The books are all available on Google books. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
[outdent somewhat]. Medicine Bags and Dog Tags doesn't contain anything I'd include here; no previews of Citizen Cyborg or White Reign are available; the mentions in Space of Hate, Mel Gibson's Passion and Bad Moon Rising are the epitome of fleeting; Interactive Technologies and the Social Studies calls Stormfront "pro-white, Nazi-oriented", and Friends calls it "white racist, lunatic fringe pro-Nazi Internet … website movement" - neither with any analysis whatseover; War and the Media contains an interesting discussion on pages 181-187, but surprise surprise nothing on Neo-Nazism. Colour me extremely unimpressed—how on earth are we supposed to treat this as a major aspect of the topic when none of the sources thus far do? Skomorokh 00:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • be-yamenu, Universiṭat Tel-Aviv Proyeḳṭ le-ḥeḳer ha-anṭishemiyut, Universiṭat Tel-Aviv Faḳulṭah le-madaʻe ha-ruaḥ, B'nai B'rith, B'nai B'rith Anti-defamation League, Universiṭat Tel-Aviv, Makhon le-ḥeḳer ha-anṭishemiyut ṿeha-gazʻanut ʻa. sh. Sṭefan Roṭ, Wiener Library, and World Jewish Congress. Anti-semitism Worldwide. ress.
  • Brean, Joseph. 2008. RCMP will not pursue charges in CHRC case; Human rights body accused of hacking into Web account. National Post, November 21.
  • Butler, Don. 2007. Ottawa lawyer vs. Calgary 'Nazi'; The Canadian Human Right Tribunal has handed Richard Warman his 10th victory in his tireless crusade to put a stop to the spread of hate over the Internet, Don Butler writes. The Ottawa Citizen, October 27.
  • Carroll, Al. 2008. Medicine Bags and Dog Tags.
  • CLARKE, JIM, and DARREN BOYLE. 2008. IRELAND 'S ROLL OF SHAME IN BILE.COM. Sunday Mirror, September 14.
  • DIANE Publishing Company. 1996. False Patriots.
  • Flint, Colin. 2004. Spaces of Hate.
  • Garber, Zev. 2006. Mel Gibson's Passion.
  • Gorenfeld, John, and Barry W. Lynn. 2008. Bad Moon Rising.
  • Hughes, James H. 2004. Citizen Cyborg.
  • Kincheloe, Joe L. 2000. White Reign.
  • LuisaTucker, Maria. 2007. A NEO-NAZI FIELD TRIP TO THE MET. The Village Voice 52, no. 24 (June 13): 23.
  • Martorella, Peter H. 1997. Interactive Technologies and the Social Studies.
  • McLachlin PalmBeachPostStaffWriter, Mary. 1998a. INTERNET SURFERS HIJACKED TO WEST PALM HATE SITE. Palm Beach Post, December 21.
  • ---. 1998b. INTERNET SURFERS HIJACKED TO WEST PALM HATE SITE. Palm Beach Post, December 21.
  • Millar, Stuart. 2000. Leeds don to attack Lawrence findings. The Guardian, March 2.
  • MIMS THESALTLAKETRIBUNE, BOB. 1998. More than 200 Internet sites qualify as `hard-core racist'. The Salt Lake Tribune, October 18.
  • O'Hara, Michael. 2006. Friends.
  • RADLER, MELISSA. 2004. Hate sites flood Internet - report. Jerusalem Post, April 20.
  • Thussu, Daya Kishan, and Des Freedman. 2003. War and the Media.

Here is a list of eighteen newspapers and books that refer to Stormfront as a nazi or neo-nazi site. The burden of evidence has been met. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Skomorokh, the reason you are unable to find any reliable sources going into a detailed, scholarly analysis of whether Stormfront is a neo-Nazi website is precisely the same reason that neither you, I, nor anyone else can find a reliable source on the subject of motor racing going into a detailed analysis of whether Mario Andretti knows how to drive a stick shift. When you ask every other editor here to assume good faith, what you're really asking for is a suspension of judgment. You're clearly employing a rhetorical technique that I call pretending to be stupider than you actually are. Everyone here, including you, is bright enough to realize that Stormfront is a neo-Nazi website, as are the multiple, reliable sources who can recognize a garden implement when they see it without wasting their resources on an idiotic, useless, detailed scholarly analysis. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot

Can someone who knows how these things are done capture a screenshot of the site for infobox purposes? Something like File:4chan front page.png would be great. Skomorokh 15:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

support continued description as neo-nazi

  • support as nom (and to wrap this up). Like skok says above, there is an abundance of reliable sources that describe this group as neo-nazi. On top of that, they fit the description to a tee, engage in activities and speech typical of neo-nazis etc...
    • This is a talkpage, not an election booth ;) I think we are quite aways from "an abundance of reliable sources that describe this group as neo-nazi", and the notion that "they fit the description to a tee, engage in activities and speech typical of neo-nazis etc..." is personal opinion, but I would agree that it is likely that an acceptably referenced attribution of the label will be forthcoming soon. Regards, Skomorokh 16:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
[[.[4]]] [[23]][[24]] I spent 3 minutes on these latest cites.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Do you really think Jewish Defence and the ADL are neutral sources here? Skomorokh 17:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

A better question - does ANYONE on planet Earth (other than white supremacists, neo-Nazis, whatever) NOT consider the website to be a neo-Nazi site? --B (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I can not find a single source saying they're not neo-nazi. I can find multiple reliable sources calling them neo-nazi. Furthermore, their founder is a neo-nazi, they have/do carry neo-nazi screeds, symbols, manifestos. They consort with neo-nazis. Many of their contributors self-identify as neo-nazi... scholars call them neo-nazis (as per the scholarly link that you removed from the article). etc... I suggest you desist from this course.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course we cannot prove a negative, the burden of proof is on the "Stormfront is a Neo-Nazi website" claim and not on the contrary, per WP:NPOV. I don't think B removed any scholarly links to the article. What course are you suggesting they desist from? Skomorokh
He is obviously referring to you, not to me. The burden of proof that Stormfront is a Neo-Nazi site has overwhelmingly been met. --B (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I am new to this discussion and got here via conversations left at a couple of editors talk pages. Anyways, I've taken the time to read through everything and without any doubt in my mind Stormfront is a Neo-Nazi website. So if this is a strawpoll count me in as supporting that this article state it as such. I'm sorry but how anyone can say it's not is surprising since I looked at the refs provided. I have to say I'm surprised that this is even being discussed. --CrohnieGalTalk 20:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Support continued description as neo-Nazi due to the overwhelming abundance of reliable sources.
A: You can't prove a negative.
B: Really? I am not a giraffe, and I can prove it.
--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I have not removed any reliable sources from the article which supported the claim of Neo-Nazism, nor do I understand the purpose of this section when no-one is arguing to the contrary. Please substantiate your claim of "whitewashing", because to my eyes the article contains far more negative coverage of Stormfront now than it did a year ago before I started expanding it. Skomorokh 19:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The box on the top

I just notice this [25]. I don't remember having an editor listed like this in the box at the top unless they are involved in the article like a COI type of situation. But would someone explain to me why the box says that this editor knows the article well enough to be the one to ask questions to? Usually I see these types of questions asked on the talk page so that any editor may speak up, not having one editor listed. It looks like WP:OWN with it written like this. Thanks in advance for any replies. --CrohnieGalTalk 21:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read the documentation of {{Maintained}} and its talkpage. The template means that the editors listed are actively monitoring the article and are familiar with the sources used, thus being good people to ask questions of i.e. "are we sure that Stormfront began in 1995 and not 1991?". It does not grant the editors any authority, nor do you need their permission to alter the article in any way. Hope this helps, Skomorokh 21:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you read the documentation of {{Maintained}} and its talkpage, particularly this part:
  • DO NOT place this template on the talk pages of controversial articles that are easily subject to POV wars.
Template removed per this very clear guidance. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The article had been placid until quite recently (see talkpage activity from August to December), but no objection to removal of the template if you feel it is sufficiently controversial at present. Skomorokh 14:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Alteration to summary by User:Bali ultimate

This edit by User:Bali ultimate strikes me as inaccurate in all three of its claims. Nowhere in the article as far as I can see is Stomrfront criticized for a "white supremacist agenda" - the only mentions of white supremacism are simple identifiers (as in "The website is notable for the white supremacist views of its members"), the focus of a documentary ("...the perceived threat of white nationalist and white supremacist organisations on the Internet"), one of the criteria the French and German governments use to censor websites (not attributed to Stormfront) and Don Black's goals ("a long-time advocate of increasing the mainstream appeal of the white supremacist movement"). Nowhere in the body of the article is the purported white supremacism of Stormfront criticised. Nor is it referenced that the site has a white supremacist agenda – only that its members have white supremacist views.

Neither is Stormfront criticised for "holocaust denial" in the article. The only mention of the Holocaust is that French and German legislation exists forbidding "to websites which host white supremacist, Holocaust-denying, historical revisionist or similar material", and that Stormfront was removed from Google's indexes to comply with the legislation. It is illogical to conclude that the claim that Stormfront denies the Holocaust, and completely far fetched that there exists criticism of this in the text.

Thirdly, the revised text claims that Stormfront is criticised for "urging members to prepare for a race war." This, again, is a warped summary of the article, which only claims that there existed a discussion among some members of Stormfront "in which white nationalists were encouraged to join the U.S. Military in order to learn the skills necessary for winning a race war". Not only is the claim that Stormfront urged its members to prepare for a race war plainly unsupported by the text, there is no mention of criticism.

In sum, this edit is a non-neutral distortion of the facts in the article. While the lede does need extensive revising to keep track with changes in the article, twisting the sources to imply criticism that is not present is an irresponsible and reprehensible way to do it. What do other editors think? Skomorokh 19:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What nonesense. I'm adding detail in body of the article to reflect this. What i removed was passive language of no real utility to a reader to get to why this group has been covered in the media, etc... Again, will be adding more on the activity of this org and commentary in a bit to address your other concerns that there is insufficient on this in the body of the article.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
What of what I wrote is nonsense exactly? Where is the criticism in the article of Stromfront's purported white supremacism, Holocaust denial and incitement to race war? Do you really think it is good practice to put in place your preferred version of the lead without bothering to substantiate it with reliable sources? Skomorokh 19:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Why doesn't this article contain any information about the subject's characterization as a website that promotes white supremacist, race war, and holocaust denial? Have the sources really been properly summarized and does the article really cover its topic without that material? Rather than fighting over the intro, I suggest editors work on fixing the body of the text so that it better represents the available sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Again, if there is such coverage out there, I'd be more than happy to include it, just point the way. It is however an untenable policy to have the lede summarise an imaginary idealised article rather than what we have to work with now. Skomorokh 21:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Footnote "a" lists 15 sources for "white supremacism". That might be a good place to start looking. The sources are here, they just need to be summarized properly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see; I'll have a look at those later, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out like your Google Books sources above. Skomorokh 21:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Right, I've had a look through the refs available online from the white supremacy footnote. This and [www.stormfront.org/dblack/racist_021998.htm this] may have material to expand with, though nothing to confirm Bali ultimate's claims nor your suspicions. It would be a great help if you would identify what specifically you think is not being summarized properly. 22:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that you are unable to find any sources that discuss Stormfront's "purported white supremacism, Holocaust denial and incitement to race war"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
No, I am saying that I looked at the sources in footnote [a] which you suggested that were accessible online and found no discussion of the topics mentioned (by "discussion" I mean analysis of the concepts/phenomena, not just using the terms "white supremacy"/"white supremacism"/"white supremacist" etc.). Did I miss something in those sources? Skomorokh 22:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Where did you get this standard that sources must contain an analysis of a concept or phenomenon in order to be used? I don't recall seeing that in any WP policies or guidelines. If a source refers to "the white supremacist website Stormfront", or says "Stormfront users post messages denying the holocaust", then those are sufficient sources for characterizing the subject. As for this matter, the article does say that Google dropped links to the site from Germany in order to comply with German law forbidding linking to Holocaust denying websites. Is that in dispute? If not then why is there a problem mentioning it in the intro? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
"Where did you get this standard that sources must contain an analysis of a concept or phenomenon in order to be used?" I did not; what are you talking about? It's not in dispute that sources identify Stormfront as white supremacist sufficient for the requirements of policy. What is still lacking verification is Bali ultimate's three claims outlined above (though this is not really an issue as Bali has already removed them from the article). I have no objection to noting that Google de-indexed Stormfront – I put that in the lede myself for goodness sake! You maintain that the article is missing content from the sources cited; I am simply asking you to identify which specific content in which sources, so that I may add it and alleviate your concerns. Skomorokh 23:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to fight over this with you. As before, I encourage you and other editors to make sure that this article meets WP:NPOV by summarizing all significant points of view. It's apparent that it does not do so now. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, I want to make the article as neutral and comprehensive as possible, but you are not being very helpful – all you're saying is that there is a problem, you're not willing to elaborate on precisely what it is or which points of view in which sources you feel are not being summarized but you expect others to "just fix it" nevertheless. Perhaps others understand what you're getting at, but I can't be of much assistance with what you're giving us. Skomorokh 00:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Google Books URLs

On a minor note, is it a good idea to include Google Books links in the url fields of the citation templates? My understanding was that we only added URLs when a full version of the text was available. Not sure of the usability value or the copyright implications. Skomorokh 13:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

On the usability value, if the quote can be found in the snippets, the link will be useful. On the copyright issue, there is a settlement agreement in the US which has received preliminary approval by the court, which appears to resolve the copyright issues arising from Google Books snippet views. Franamax (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, very helpful. I suppose there is no compelling reason to omit them, though I suspect this might hit a stumbling block at WP:MOS or WP:CITE at some point. Skomorokh 19:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes and references

These might be easier to follow and more useful to the reader if they were consolidated into one section of references. Thoughts? Tom Harrison Talk 22:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(great minds etc.) I think the "sources that consider" references should be treated with consistently for the "hate site" "white supremacy" and "Neo-Nazi" instances. Either we integrate them all into the References section or put them all in Footnotes as before, but the current set-up does not make sense. I prefer to leave editorial comment out of the References section, but if consensus is for it I won't object. Skomorokh 22:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this version is clearest and most useful, as it unambiguously distinguishes between direct citations and mass references with commentary. Footnotes and references are categorically different imo. Skomorokh 22:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've consolidated the two into one References section as suggested. Is everyone happy with this? Skomorokh 18:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ray and Marsh ref

Any objections to using this study (currently in External links) as a source in the article? It looks reliable to me, and can be used to substantiate the claim that Stormfront hosts Holocaust revisionist material as well as providing info on Stormfront for Kids and the attempt by Stormfront to legitimise itself by deference to documented authority, to name just some of the topics covered. Any objections? Skomorokh 19:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, First Monday, being a peer reviewed scholarly journal published by the University of Illinois at Chicago would seem to meet our requirements for a reliable source, and if not, both Beverly Ray and George E. Marsh II seem to be credentialed experts in appropriate fields (fulfilling WP:SPS) so given the absence of any discussion, I am going to go ahead and use this as a source. Skomorokh 10:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you propose using it as a source for? Haven't read the whole thing yet, though there characterization of Stormfront's efforts and motivations is spot on. Stormfront promotes a message of "White Pride World Wide." A major purpose is the creation of a virtual community for both white extremist families and singles. The site provides direct or indirect links to a variety of extremist sites on the Internet, such as neo-Nazis, skinheads, and various Christian-identity groups that espouse racism, anti-Semitism and Christian fundamentalism. Stormfront is an Internet-based, Neo-Nazi organization."[[26]] I'll also point out that they consider it an organization, and I would have to agree. It is the shopwindow for a political movement managed by Don Black.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I've used it as a source for quite a bit, actually; you can trace the citations here. Hope this helps. Skomorokh 14:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Website or organisation?

Related to this discussion, I'm wondering whether it is more accurate to call Stormfront a website/"Internet forum" as were are at present, or as a community/organisation. The sources seem split. Ray and Marsh refer to it as "an Internet-based, Neo-Nazi organization", which strikes me a step in the direction of greater accuracy than our "white supremacist, neo-Nazi Internet forum". Also to bear in mind is that Stormfront existed before it was a website. Thoughts? Skomorokh 11:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Your ownership problems with tihs article are a problem. You've just bloated the lede for the 3rd or 4th time in the past few days with Blacks self-serving justifications and stylings for his racist, white supremecist agenda. I'll leave alone for now because of 3rr but it's increasingly looking like a game; you add in crap, it gets reverted, you add in slightly different crap, and other editors get tied in knots with policy as they try to help write a neutral article, rather than one littered with a noxious point of view.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, all those citations ended up in the lede because you said the overwhelming evidence that they are in fact a neo-nazi, white supremcist, racist group were not supported by reliable sources. Now you edit them out saying they're not needed? This article is rapidly looking like it's lost GA status; i've never asked for a review on this issue, but after i figure out how it's done and wait a day or so for others to chime in, that's almost certainly what i'm going to do.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The claim that I "said the overwhelming evidence that they are in fact a neo-nazi, white supremcist, racist group were not supported by reliable sources" is not true. I have consistently supported the inclusion of the description of Stormfront as Neo-Nazi, white supremacist and racist after reliable sources were provided for each. The lead is a different issue entirely as WP:LEADCITE explains. Because no-one disputes that the claims in the lead are supported by reliable sources in the article, it is not necessary to visually clutter it with inline citations (though note that the three footnotes for white supremacist, Neo-Nazi and first hate site remain, in case a passing editor finds these non-neutral and tries to remove them in ignorance of consensus, as has happened before). Like I said to Will Beback above, I completely welcome a Good Article Reassessment and was planning to put the article up for peer review in a few days; I welcome outside scrutiny of the article. If you need help trying to get the GAR underway I can assist in the process side of things. Regards, Skomorokh 17:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Bali, I am trying to accommodate your edits and keep the article improving; the article incorporates your quote from the ADL[27], and USA Today[28], the lede segment referring to multiculturalism and race wars that you objected to are no longer there[29], the lede now describes the organisations as racist rather than racialist as you wanted[30], I let your removal of the tags I added to the SPLC ref questioning whether it called Stormfront a "Neo-Nazi website" stand, even though it does not, because I am not interested in edit-warring[31], I removed the "sub-fora" wording you wanted gone[32] and used "topics" instead[33], left out the bit about Black and "defending the white race" as you wished[34] and the criticism of the documentary from the lede[35]. I'm completely willing to discuss all of my edits and believe that the article is better off as a result of our back and forth, and hope you will continue editing it in a collegial manner. Sincerely, Skomorokh 17:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Skomorokh, can I suggest you not edit the page for a few days? Others can look at what's there and deal with any concerns, and maybe the article will stabilize at a consensus version. If nothing else, we can all do something else for a day or two and things will cool off. Tom Harrison Talk 18:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the page not being edited for a while (and have just suggested that the article might be full-protected so that we can work out the individual issues and come to consensus). How does that sound? Skomorokh 18:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like you manipulated the process to get the page locked in your preferred version, then disingenuously presented this as a generous accommodation. Live and learn, I guess. Tom Harrison Talk 19:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I presented nothing as a "generous accommodation"; I suggested it as a solution to the content disputes, because editors were unwilling to discuss their proposed improvements on this talkpage. Tom, I am an editor in good standing. Been here over two years, never been blocked, never been involved in an Arbitration case or RFC/U, and managed to contribute plenty of Good and Featured content without having my editorial integrity called into question. My fairness, trustworthiness and good faith have been besmirched here; I don't particularly mind as long as the article gets written professionally and neutrally. But it's is not productive to attack the editor rather than focus on the edits; drop it. Skomorokh 19:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
If you don't want to be called on tactics like that, don't engage in them. If you don't want to know what I think, don't ask. Tom Harrison Talk 20:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Fair point: I'm more interested in hearing what you really think that not having uncharitable things said about me. I maintain that I don't use "tactics" to "win" discussions, but we will have to agree to differ on that for now. Skomorokh 20:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Images

Anyone got any ideas for images to add to the article? At the moment we only have three, two of which are copyrighted. I was considering an image of Jefferson/Jesus/Darwin/MLK for the "Tactics" section, but seeing as an editor took umbrage at an image of Bill O'Reilly being included in the Controversies section, I thought I would ask here for suggestions instead. What do you think? Skomorokh 17:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a picture book and doesn't have to have pictures decorating every article. I am often told that I have a poor imagination, but I cannot imagine an encyclopedic use for any of the four images being included. If we had a free image of the founder of the website or any important people involved, incorporating those photos would be fine, but having a photo of someone merely because they are mentioned on the website or have mentioned the website isn't really appropriate. It isn't as big of an issue from a BLP standpoint for MLK or Darwin - they are dead and lived in pre-internet times so nobody skimming the article would ever incorrectly infer that they are a supporter of the website and even if they did, there's no libel there. But it still would look out of place from an editorial standpoint. --B (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I can agree with that. It's a pity we don't have an image of Black. Do you think we could get a screenshot of the homepage for the infobox at least though? Skomorokh 19:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
A picture of Adolph Hitler making a Nazi salute would seem to me to be the most appropriate image possible.72.11.124.226 (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"One of the earliest and continually published websites"

B has removed this claim in this edit. Although it is supported by a reliable source, I don't really think the claim adds much value to the article, and it's accuracy is disputed (There could be some confusion between the 1990 and 1995 origin dates though). I agree with B that we are better off without it. Thoughts? Skomorokh 18:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The World Wide Web did not even exist until 1992. In 1990, Al Gore hadn't invented it yet and so there were zero websites at that time. The site owner may have run a racist organization or Bulletin board system (the article says bulletin board right now, so that's an amusing alternate possibility) but there was no website. The claim that it was one of the "earliest" websites is almost certainly merely other sources reprinting the website's own propaganda without fact checking it under the assumption that they wouldn't make it up. --B (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that is concerning. Internet history is not one of my areas of expertise I'm afraid, so thanks for catching that. Are there any other claims in the article that look like regurgitated propaganda? Skomorokh 19:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I remember thinking in early 1995 or so when my dad first got internet access and the browser that eventually became Internet Explorer (I forget the name now) on his 80486 at his work, "this is too slow to be useful to anyone and will never last". I guess I missed that one slightly. ;) --B (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Hah! At least our flurry of edits here was good for something :) Skomorokh 19:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
B, that would have been Spry Mosaic. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Summary of the ideology section

The summary in the lede of the ideology section was removed in this edit. Does another editor want to have a go at summarizing it? The whole article needs to be summarized per WP:UNDUE/WP:LEDE. Gracias, Skomorokh 18:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's how the section reads, minus citations and links:

Stormfront presents itself as engaged in a struggle for unity, identifying culture, speech and free association as its core concerns, though members of Stormfront are especially passionate about racial purity. It promotes a lone wolf mentality, linking to white nationalist theorist Louis Beam's influential work on leaderless resistance and offering a sympathetic assessment of Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, a white supremacist who committed suicide after a racially-motivated killing spree in June 1999. Scholar Violet Jones notes that Stormfront—like organizations such as Minuteman Project and the Military Order of the Stars and Bars—credits its mission to the founding myth of an America "created, built, and ideologically grounded by the descendants of white Europeans." Asked in 2008 by an interviewer for Italian newspaper la Repubblica whether Stormfront was a twenty-first century version of the Ku Klux Klan without the iconography, Black responded affirmatively, though noting that he would never say so to an American journalist.

Ideally, we could find a way of summarizing this in one sentence a line or two long. I'd argue that the Smith mention and Louis Beam do not need to be summarised, as they are only there to illustrate the point that Stormfront "promotes a lone wolf mentality". Similarly, The Minutemen Project and the Military Order of the Stars and Bars can be omitted, as they are only there as an aside rather than as a crucial point. Violet Jones is not important to be mentioned in a summary of Stormfront, nor is the fact that Black's statement about the KKK was published in la Republlica. That leaves us with the following factoids:

  • Stormfront presents itself as engaged in a struggle for unity
  • Stormfront identifies culture, speech and free association as its core concerns
  • Stormfront members are especially passionate about racial purity
  • Stormfront promotes a lone wolf mentality
  • Stormfront credits its mission to the founding myth of an America created, built and ideologically grounded by the descendants of white Europeans
  • Don Black sees Stormfront as a twenty-first century version of the Ku Klux Klan without the iconography

I don't think this could all be summarized in one sentence, but the KKK bit is arguably important enough to get its own sentence (which would wrap the lead section up nicely). That would leave us with five factoids; I'd be happy with any two or three of them going in, though I'm particularly partial to the Violet Jones analysis, which seems the least likely candidate for "self-promotion" by Stormfront. Thoughts? Skomorokh 20:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference swain was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Captmike works undercover with the US Government to stop the invasion of the Island Nation of Dominica. manana.com
  3. ^ Operation Red Dog: Canadian neo-Nazis were central to the planned invasion of Dominica in 1981 canadiancontent.ca
  4. ^ Zhou, Y (2008). "U.S. Domestic Extremist Groups on the Web: Link and Content Analysis" (PDF). University of Arizona. Retrieved 2008-12-27. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stormfront_(website)/Archive_6&oldid=1137207301"