Talk:Stormfront (website)/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

'The new Ku Klux Klan'?

Interesting stuff, this. -- Nevard 00:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting stuff indeed, but I have to ask in light of this fatherly advice:

“ Do not you ever say, you can not say." Shake and try to stop the hand with the speech: "You know that you can not say." The father remains motionless: "Do not ever say to an American journalist, but you know that is true. ” — Il Duce Grandi Wizardi Don Black

...are machine translations from Repubblica reliable enough for our purposes?! the skomorokh 13:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I'm not even going to try and parse that by hand. Could be worth having someone who can read it fluently look over it. -- Nevard 14:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's another machine translation here. I'm having a go at finding someone who could provide some decent insight. -- Nevard 11:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And I've asked an editor fluent in the language to do a translation. "I asked them if Stormfront is not just another new Ku Klux Klan, a Klan of the 21st Century without pointed hoods and Arian symbols. "Yes, it is just like that", was the instant response. Along with Don Black, his son Dereck (age 19) is seated, who is the organizer of the radio (program) on the Internet of Stormfront. From the beginning of our encounter he listened quietely, but now interrupts his father: "You have not never said it, you can not say that". He gestured and tried to stop his father's speaking with his hand: " You know that you can't say it". The father remained immovable: " I never said that an American journalist, but you know that it is true"." Nevard (talk) 06:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite uncomfortable with including this in the article given the current state of play; your translation does not make grammatical sense in English as far as I can make out, and a misplaced conjunction could radically alter the meaning of the passage. From an encyclopaedian point of view, I would love to write that Black envisages Stormfront as the new KKK, but we can't trust this source for such an outrageous claim - what if the media picked it up from Wikipedia and it turned out to be a misunderstanding? Egg on our faces. I had a brief look around the Stormfront forums but I couldn't find anything dealing with this report specifically, although [www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=6121193&postcount=39 this comment] casts serious doubt as to the journalistic reliability of the article we have just included. the skomorokh 15:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't ask for perfection- just wanted to check that I wasn't reading the article wrong. I think it is reasonable to believe I am not reading the article wrong, and that Dereck Black was not interrupting his father to stop him expanding on the subject of how Stormfront could not be thought of as the new KKK, and Don Black was not pointing out that he had sometimes failed to explain his pluralist view on life to the American media.

Obviously, we're not going to be mining that source for a 'typical Stormfront quote' in the lede any time soon. Nevard (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, our translation seems plausible; it sounds like something Black would say and I am reasonably sure we are not mischaracterising anyone. Skomorokh 13:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... I did have my own doubts about it, but it seems fine after a bit of consideration. Nevard (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any objection to moving the quoted section here? As long as we are agreed on the wording, it does not seem necessary or desirable to include a somewhat questionable translation in a originally-researched footnote, with all due respect and gratitude for your work on this. I have this Quixotic notion of taking this article to WP:FAC, and I'm not sure the inclusion of the translation would be favourably received there. Skomorokh 13:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll move the quotation here tomorrow barring any issues. Skomorokh 12:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Opposed, mostly at this point on the grounds i have no idea what's being proposed. Perhaps you could explain in a new thread at the bottom of this page instead of seeking consensus for something way up here?Bali ultimate (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I also oppose this until you clarify what you're proposing. If what you want to do is move the quotation from the article to the talk page, I'm definitely opposed. Also, I'm having trouble seeing how [www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=6121193&postcount=39 this comment] "casts serious doubt as to the journalistic reliability of the article". Could you kindly explain how a Stormfront editor pissing and moaning about how the Associated Press reports on his site casts doubt on anything reported in Repubblica, in any other publication, or even in the Associated Press? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The proposal is to move the quoted translation here. This is because, though there is no objection (at least not from me or John Nevard) that the ref verifies the claim, the translation itself is original research and must be removed from the article; the reason it ought to be moved here is so that if a reader unfamiliar with Italian starts enquiring about the validity of the ref, they can see the explanation we were acting off. The Italian quotation itself does not belong in the article because it's only a click away (unlike the quotes from offline sources) and of little use to 99% of readers, but that is of much lesser importance. Hope this clarifies things somewhat, Skomorokh 21:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Is a translation original research? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It is unless it's been published by a reliable third party, no? We could take this to WP:ORN but it seems to me to be straightforward. Skomorokh 23:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Any outstanding objections to moving this? Skomorokh 23:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here it is for posterity's sake, italics added:

"Quote from Black: "Gli chiedo allora se Stormfront non sia altro che il nuovo Ku Klux Klan, il Klan del Ventunesimo Secolo senza cappucci e simboli ariani. "Sì, è così", risponde d'istinto". This translates as: "I asked him if Stormfront is not just another new Ku Klux Klan, a Klan of the 21st Century without pointed hoods and Aryan symbols. "Yes, it is just like that", was the instant response."

Further quote from Black: "Il padre resta immobile: "Non lo direi mai ad un giornalista americano, ma lo sai che è vero".". This translates as: "The father remained immovable: "I would never say that to an American journalist, but you know that it is true"."

Skomorokh 22:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Tag the article as a warning to readers?

Hello, sorry I haven't had much time to devote to the discussion here in the last day or so, (recovering from over-exuberant welcoming of 2009 and reviewing student papers are unsurprisingly uncomplimentary), but it's good to see no major edits are being made without consensus. One thought that struck me is that our readers probably ought to be warned of the content disputes by means of header tags. At the very least, an {{npov}} tag should be added to reflect the concerns of the above discussions, I think. {{ActiveDiscuss}} might be a helpful addition also. Regards, Skomorokh 03:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Will add. Enigma msg 04:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Are there any specific statements in the article someone is disputing at this point? Skomorokh 22:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking?

Hopefully this is a less contentious issue. I think there are a number of links that add little value, per Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Thoughts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm usually guilty of this; no objections if someone wants to remove some of the blue. Skomorokh 22:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Content to add from The Racist Next Door article

It strikes me that [www.stormfront.org/dblack/racist_021998.htm this article] is underused at present. The following are statements concerning Stormfront that I found interesting and would like to include in the article, if there is consensus to do so:

1. "Black spends most of his time maintaining Stormfront."
2. "Vocal critics … routinely recite the evils of Stormfront, arguing that the smart presentation and politically correct language veils the racism and threatens unsuspecting children."
3. "… Black's spectrum of links (connections to other Websites) that deny the Holocaust, propound "scientific" racism and revolutionary violence, a graphics library that includes an array of Nazi images from S.S. emblems to swastikas, and the myriad pseudointellectual racist essays." [it would be nice to get a link to scientific racism into the article]

Any comments/objections/suggestions? Skomorokh 21:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I changed them to numbers so we can refer to them easier (hope that's OK). I see no point in mentioning #1 without something to contrast it to. To mention that he spends more time maintaining the site than "doing something else" is informative. To say he spends a lot of time maintaining the site doesn't tell me anything. Or if that was to be used as a counterpoint that I may be missing (I'm new to this article), then OK.

(2) I think is a great addition.

(3) is again, mentioning something with no counterpoint that I can see. It even reads like an incomplete sentence "Black's list of links and pictures..." and then doesn't go anywhere. Is there a counterpoint I'm not seeing? Padillah (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in and helpfully numbering things :) Regarding (1), our article currently contains the line "Operating the site from its West Palm Beach, Florida headquarters is Black's full time job, and he is assisted by his son and 40 moderators"; I'd like to slip the claim that he spends most of his time maintaining Stormfront in there somewhere. Similarly, we claim that "Stormfront.org is comprehensive and frequently updated, hosting files from and links to a number of white nationalist and white racist websites". By using (3), we can go into detail about what kinds of sites these are, instead of just telling the reader their ideology. (3) is a sentence fragment, you are correct, the full sentence can be read at the article [www.stormfront.org/dblack/racist_021998.htm here]. Hope this helps, Skomorokh 22:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Any outstanding issues with including the three statements? Skomorokh 21:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will add these in the next few days. Skomorokh 03:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere on the page, we should rely less on self-description, not more. The article as it is now spends too much time articulating the site's views. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally agree that the views of Don Black are overrepresented in the article (though per NPOV we ought to give them as much weight as the reliable sources cited do, which for some reason is a lot). But I don't see any self-description in the above quotes; could you clarify what specifically you object to here? Skomorokh 20:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add some of this to the article; does anyone have an opinion on the merits of that, or substantiation of the claim that it involves self-description by Stormfront? Skomorokh 23:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"...substantiation of the claim that it involves self-description by Stormfront?" You mean the quotes cited to <nowiki>www.stormfront.org/dblack/racist_021998.htm</nowiki>? Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

An article written by David Schwab Abel and published in the Miami New Times (ref), neither of whom have any affiliation to Stormfront whatsoever, constitutes "self-description" on Stormfront's part because they host a copy on their website?! I'm sorry, I'm not following your point at all here... Skomorokh 17:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And when the site uses those quotes to describe itself - that's self-description. Padillah (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm proposing that we take sentences written by the journalist from the newspaper article and put it in the article. What does Stormfront's opinion of itself have to do with that? Where does Stormfront use the quotes to describe itself anyway? I don't see them self-identifying as evil, racist, and child-threatening. The idea that using content from this article is overly favourable to Stormfront is not credible when Black calls it "arguably the most malicious article I've ever had written about me". Skomorokh 17:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for barging in, this is only to remind. Self-description is ok if it's straightforwardly called self-description and cited back to a reasonable, verifiable, believable source, like the website. The pith here would be WP:UNDO: The website is notable not for its self-description, but for what independent sources have to say about it, hence those independent sources should be thoroughly covered and moreover, if the PoVs among those sources aren't the same (even if they're all taken as negative), each reliably sourced PoV should be dealt with, along with any self-description. Put another way (and this, I think, would be true of an article about any org or website), it's the lack of weight, from the very sources which make a topic notable, taken with too much self description, which would make a text read like an "advertisement" or worse. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh, It depends exactly what you are citing and exactly what you say. Citing the Miami newspaper is not a problem in itself. If that's used, we should just cite (and independently verify the content of) that article as a news article. We cannot of course assume that anything Stormfront.org hosts is an accurate or legitimate copy, so there's no point in linking to them or relying on them for references. It remains that the article is already overweighted with self-description and articluations of Black's views. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I intend to cite the three claims listed above (rewording them slightly to avoid plagiarism), none of which contain self-descriptions of Black's views, but rather portay the subject in an unflattering light. I don't have a problem with removing the link to Stormfront in the citation, as Wikipedia reader probably ought not to be subjected to Black's prologue. It's is quite unlikely that Black has distorted the article; it appears identical to the version hosted here I uncovered through Google. Skomorokh 18:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

To follow up and to be clear, no website is ever a reliable source for copies of independent commentary about itself or the org which runs it: If citations to such copies are challenged, they can be removed with no further ado. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your last claim, but no-one is claiming that Stormfront has misrepresented this article, and it would appear that they would be wrong to do so. Now that we have a primary source for the article, I don't see why we can't just replace the Stormfront link with it and disregard Stormfront's thoughts on the issue. Skomorokh 18:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they'd be wrong to assert the racial superiority of white people too. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to browardpalmbeach.com as a source. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and replaced the Stormfront link with the above, and hope to expand on the material in the ref in the next few days. Skomorokh 21:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, the article is already overweighted with self-description and articulations of Black's views. I oppose any "expansion" that exacerbates that problem, or any that slants that article any further in Stormfront's favor. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel like I'm talking to the wall here. There is no self-description in the above three quotes; there is the journalist's description of Black/Stormfront. There is no articulation of Black's views in them either, only the journalist's assessment of Black's role and of the links on Stormfront, and the views of Stromfront's vocal critics. Skomorokh 00:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Post your proposed edit here and I'll look at it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. Do you mind if I make it and then quickly self-revert? I don't know how to accurately convey it here. Skomorokh 00:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Just type here what you would type in the article. Self-reverting looks confusing in the article history. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get around to it in the next couple of days. Thanks for catching this, btw. Regards, Skomorokh 00:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Evolution/Darwin/Science segment

I can't say I understand this edit by Orangemarlin; the edit summary reads " Let's be accurate. This age-old argument made popular by Ben Stein fails on so many levels" but I don't know the intended referent. The relevant portion of the reference cited (Beverley and Marsh) reads:

Scientific ideas, particularly Darwinian evolutionary theory, are used as a justification for many of the ideas promoted by the groups, in particular the National Alliance, Stormfront, and Aryan Nations. Like the Nazis before them, they rely upon a blend of science, ignorance, and mythology to prop up their arguments.

Note that Stormfront is one of "the groups" in question. I freely admit that Darwinism may be a less than ideal target for "Darwinian evolutionary theory", but I don't see where in the source the claim that Stormfront corrupts science is stated; this does not seem to be a neutral reflection of the source. Can someone fill me in on what the "Ben Stein" reference is supposed to mean and how this edit is an improvement? Gracias, Skomorokh 23:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a reference to Expelled: No intelligence allowed which is a propaganda film that compares scientists and those against young Earth creationism/ID/whatever to Nazis. I support OMs edit as it is clear misuse, and the reference compares the misuse to that of the Nazis. Verbal chat 17:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. The source says that Stormfront "uses" science "as a justification for" its ideas, and "[relies] upon a blend of science, ignorance and mythology" to support its arguments. The blend comment is already used as a quote in the article, so I am guessing that the "Corruption of scientific theories, evolutionary theory in particular, are used to support its ideas" claim in our article is drawn from the "Scientific ideas, particularly Darwinian evolutionary theory, are used as a justification for many of the ideas promoted by the groups" claim in the source. If that is the case, I do not see how that "corruption" is a neutral synonym for "use". Skomorokh 20:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Modern evolutionary theory does not support claims of white people's genetic superiority. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance; the source is not attributing to Stormfront a belief in genetic superiority. Skomorokh 21:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's being proposed here. But i agree with Tom's comment immediately above mine, and it certainly should be the case that we explain that they "misuse" or "corrupt" or "blend science with ignorance and bias in an attempt to gloss their racism with a pseudo-scientific veneer."Bali ultimate (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The question is how to neutrally reflect the viewpoint expressed by the reliable source without bias. The claim of corruption is not supported by this source, as far as I can see (though if anyone knows of another source that does support this claim, by all means come forward with it). To interpret 'uses scienctific theories to support its ideas' as 'corrupts scientific theories to support its ideas' does not seem neutral. Skomorokh 21:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Since science does not in fact support stormfront's claims, the existing language is fine as far as content goes. Some stylistic changes may be in order at some point. Separately, "how to neutrally reflect the viewpoint expressed by the reliable source without bias" suggests somehow neutralizing the sources. This misunderstands what neutrality is and how we get there. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is claiming science supports Stormfront's claims? Which claims are you referring to? Which source? Even if it were verifiable that "science" does not support some claims of Stormfront, that would not logically imply that corruption is involved. Scientific consensus is not on the side of the Flat Earthers, but that does not make them guilty of corruption. WP:NPOV means representing viewpoints fairly and without bias, not neutralising them; I don't think our current wording represents the viewpoints of Beverley and Marsh fairly because they don't accuse Stormfront of corruption. Skomorokh 21:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Science does not support Stromfront's claims about the racial superiority of white people, as I think I said above. Are you asking for a source that claims of white racial superiority are bunk? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm looking for a ref that supports the claim that Stormfront corrupts science; no original syntheses please. Skomorokh 21:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Text like "misuse" or "corrupt" or "blend science with ignorance and bias in an attempt to gloss their racism with a pseudo-scientific veneer" is very ok if it's wrapped in quotes and straightforwardly cited word-for-word as a quote to a reliable source which has commented on the website's content. It's not in any way ok but rather, original research, if an editor has paraphrased or otherwise spun a cited source. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't want to get in the position of trying to write the article by stringing together quotations with a footnote after each. Sources must necessarily be accurately and completely summarized. The text we have now does that, I think. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If the controversy and dispute are strong enough, any paraphrase can indeed be removed as unsupported original research. "Stringing quotes" can always be handled with deft editorial and writing skill and is not a worry. There is nothing untowards about citing every sentence if need be. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Among reliable sources, there seems to be no significant controversy or dispute about Stormfront. The concern here is an extensive rewrite that has had the effect of slanting the article to be less unfavorable to Stormfront than the collective sources support. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about the controversy and dispute on this talk page. If paraphrases are disputed, they can be removed as original research, if only because the wording could indeed be cite spanning or the drawing/spinning of an original conclusion. You can argue that editor consensus might trump this, but quotes are always more reliable than paraphrases. If the only way to settle the article into an echo of the reliable sources, with fitting weight applied, is through quotes, then quotes it must be. To say again, the esthetics can be handled through writing craft. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I understand your position and I'll think about it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a given, this topic is no fun to deal with :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I largely agree with Tom on the general preferability of paraphrase over direct quotation, per WP:ASF, but disagree that this specific instance is an unbiased paraphrase (though the other paraphrases made in Tom's condensing edit were reasonably neutral IMO). Skomorokh 21:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:ASF has to do with fact and opinion. My comments had to do with quotes and paraphrase. An opinion which has been paraphrased from a quote is still an opinion, likewise a fact. WP:ASF has nothing to do with what I'm getting at, the worry is misleading (or thought-to-be misleading) paraphrase. When this comes up and a paraphrase is disputed by editors for any reason, go to the quote. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following this at all any more. The article says the following: "In a 2001 study of white nationalist groups such as Stormfront, academics Beverly Ray and George E. Marsh II commented that "Like the Nazis before them, they rely upon a blend of science, ignorance, and mythology to prop up their arguments."" Is there a problem with this that i'm missing?Bali ultimate (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

One more thing. The writing, clarity and relevance of the fake MLK site is much better in the edit diff from Orange Marlin above then the article now stands.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality, GA criteria and the lead section

In case you are not already aware, this article is undergoing a Good Article Reassessment here; the assessor has criticised the manner in which the subject is introduced and asks that editors supporting this characterisation be directed to reassessment page. Thanks, Skomorokh 22:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute?

"...and the first and most popular racist website." What is the objection to this? Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, at the moment, it's unsourced, at least the "first and most popular" part. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It is sourced, just not in the lead. The neutrality of the opening line is disputed by the two reviewing editors at the GAR subpage, as discussed above. Skomorokh 21:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The whole article is non-neutral, in that it has an inappropriately favorable slant. So I agree with tagging it 'neutrality disputed', though from the other direction. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

White activist discussion board

Don Blacks announcement is that the site is a community of White activists. I would like to add that before the medias unbiased judgement for it being a supremacist; neo-nazi site. [www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=25433#post25433 Welcome to the Stormfront discussion board!] --90.224.52.177 (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Don Blacks self-serving branding of his project don't get primacy over reliable secondary sources that accurately describe his hate site/group.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree; self-assessment is definitely not reputable. Nobody would ever describe themselves using a derogative term, and even if they would, it would be an extreme conflict of interest for Don Black to get the last word. rock8591 05:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)

A quick view of the topics I can clearly state that the discussions is about unbiased newsmedia articles and the struggle for ethnical survival. Not much hate there. --90.224.52.177 (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you completely miss the parts where they're racist, ignorant, and FREAKING NAZI WANNABES?! God, I'm ashamed the *chans haven't DDoSed it out of existence... 124.188.171.7 (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I completely missed the slurs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.87.114 (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The group, officially, does NOT emulate National Socialism -- to judge them because a portion of their membership are Neo-Nazis or Skinheads is pretty unfitting. If we were to judge all organizations by mere fractions of their memberships we would have some pretty skewed results. The Catholic Church would officially be pro-pedophilia; Islam would officially exist only to blow things up. The list goes on and on. A single member does not decide what the intent of an organization is -- the organizations leadership does.Rupp Ward (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

While I agree, there's nothing that really can be done about it. Wikipedia simply takes information from sources and organizes it. While there is a clear double standard in the way various media outlets treat white and non-white racial organizations, this double standard is enforced by the sources themselves, not by Wikipedia's policies. 闇甦兄 (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

We go by what sources tell us, as other psters have mentioned. But I will add that the site has hosted neo-nazi an white nationalist logos and imagery in moderator controlled areas, and the management also determines who may participate.   Will Beback  talk  22:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This from their guidelines for posting [www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=482748 Stormfront Rules and Operation Manual.] : "From that commitment flows our most important message: we name the Jew as the deadliest, if not the only, threat to our existence as a race. Forge this message in titanium.", if one still has any doubts about the nature of this website. DR2006kl (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

New Source

The latest edition of Private Eye has a section with some detail on the stormfront website and its activities. Should be a good source for the article. Verbal chat 17:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Your link leads to an article on a satirical magazine...are you being sarcastic? Skomorokh 00:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal of Doug Hanks

First, since the page is protected, would someone kindly paste this into the article:

{{mergefrom|Doug Hanks|Talk:Stormfront (website)#Merger proposal|{{subst:DATE}}}}

The Doug Hanks article was proposed for deletion, however, though consensus, a merger proposal has been proffered instead.

Subject's notability stems primarily from posts made on this site.

74.69.39.11 (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the heads up. Skomorokh 01:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and you are welcome. 74.69.39.11 (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Perhaps it would be worth mentioning that a high number of Stormfront users come from decidedly "non-white" countries.

According to Stormfront's ALEXA page ([1]), as of Feb. 18, 2009 Stormfront is ranked:

3,948 in Bangladesh 21,158 in Mexico 22,077 in Pakistan 23,102 in Japan 33,183 in Indonesia 40,778 in India

The above countries contribute a combined 9.1% of all Stormfront users worldwide.

Have there been any reliable sources commenting on why this is so? Are there really tons of Bengalis who support white supremacy? Or maybe there is another explanation (like Americans or Europeans "onion routing" their internet connections through these countries, possibly to hide their true identities like spammers do?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.104.234 (talk • contribs) 13:15, February 21, 2009

Alexa counts visitors to websites, not users of websites. These numbers don't necessarily mean anything. --Geniac (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess that at least some of those consider themselves white or white sympathizers. Mexico in particular has an entrenched ethnic divide between those of indigenous, "white"/Spanish, and mestizo heritage. I haven't seen any commentary on this topic in the reliable sources cited, but if you find some let us know. Skomorokh 18:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds too much like original research to me. Also, relevancy. Beganlocal (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Geniac, Alexa tracks visitors of a website; in other words, the people on their computers who type "stormfront.org" That means not a single thing, because there are numerous reasons why people visit the site. Statistically speaking, only a very small percentage of people who visit Stormfront subscribe to it and its beliefs, which is why there is a huge discrepancy between the number of "active users", "users", and "guests/visitors." --Rock8591 17:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)

No ISP?

A small semantic change which i can't be bothered to work out how to word in the article is the use of the term internet service provider (ISP). the article says they don't rely on an internet service provider as they have their own servers. More accurately it means that the don't reply on an ISP for -hosting- but almost certainly do for a connection to the internet itself. 202.176.0.252 (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Simple - we change it to reflect the fact that they don't rely on a web hosting service. Beganlocal (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Racist video games.

I refer to the following article content in the "Services" section which I removed as unsourced:

and the Stormfront for Kids section of the website hosts a link to "White Power Doom", a downloadable white power computer game that allows children the opportunity to hunt and kill Jews and black people.

The sources given do not link the computer game in question with SF, and I am unable to download the game from stormfront dot org. I propose that this material is removed as there are no citations which directly connect the existence of the game with SF. If anyone can find a cite which does, please include it.

Beganlocal (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Supremacy

Simple question: Why is that Stormfront is described as a "white supremacist" website on wikipedia when the Stormfront FAQ (www.stormfront.org/whitenat.htm) makes it very clear that is not the case?

Q. Do White Nationalists feel they are superior to other races?

A. No. The desire of White Nationalists to form their own nation has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority.

Even a quick post to their Opposing Views section asking "Do you believe whites are superior to other races?" will show that the majority of white nationalists do not believe in such nonsense. I saw that there is a long list of references for that particular claim, but if it is a patently untrue statement does it really matter how many sources support it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsw (talk • contribs) 18:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a long-standing dispute over the terms "white nationalist" and "white supremacist". So far as I can tell, putting it roughly, "white nationalist" is the term used by those sympathetic to the movement while "white supremacist" is used by those opposed to it. Other than that, they refer to the same movement/ideology. To give an imaginary example, suppose some element of the Mafia described themselves as an "Italian heritage society" even though outsiders caled them a criminal gang. In that case, would we be limited to using the term they use for themselves? Of course not. But we should mention that term too. If we have good sources that use terms besides "white supremacist" then we should reflect those usages in the text of the article too.   Will Beback  talk  18:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that the official Stormfront FAQ is a good reference for terms besides "white supremacist?" Also, I disagree that "white supremacist" and "white nationalist" are referring to the same ideology. "Supremacy" implies a belief that whites are genetically predisposed to be a ruling class among all other races (so Hinduism would be white supremacy) whereas "Nationalism" describes a desire to separate from other races on a national level which inherently implies a certain level of equality. Thank you for the thoughtful and fair response. 69.138.153.225 (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have heard that distinction offered before, but in actual fact the two terms are applied to the same people and concepts. It's just that one is preferred by proponents and the other by opponents. As for the Stormfront FAQ, it would be an appropriate primary source for the views of the management, but in general primary sources are only used under certain circumstances.   Will Beback  talk  20:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Using Stormfront FAQ as a reference is horrible by all means. By that logic, then a person on trial who pleads innocent is actually 100% innocent and is sure to be not guilty. --Rock8591 19:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Will Beback. Quick browse over their forums shows the true views of the community there as well as that the distinction between "white supremacist" and "white nationalist" is purely political, masterminded to attract a wider participation. DR2006kl (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As a followup to that remark; just as it is slander and libel to call someone a white supremacist when they are not, it is equally false to say that someone is not a white supremacist when they actually are. Good thinking, and good logic DR. --Rock8591 22:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Those arguments are total nonsense. The terms 'white supremacy' and 'white nationalism' mean different things and that they are misused by the evidently biased editors of this article does not change that.

You should do some reading before you make up your mind.

I will make it clear (and no this is not a matter of opinion): That white nationalists want white nations for them selves(on sound reasoning I will have you know) does not mean they think themselves superior or supreme. Now some may feel that the nations which Europeans build more appealing than the nations of say South America or Africa or the Middle East but that is a separate issue.

You are unfairly characterizing white nationalism. It is as I said, the terms are not interchangeable despite the declarations of the biased contributers above. And no, that they are used interchangeably by ignorant people is irrelevant.86.42.245.13 (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of us, including me, have done more than enough reading than the average Stormfront user, about SF, and have had frequently browsed the site before. Moreover, this article is about SF itself, not "white nationalism vs. white supremacism." It is true that SF refers to themselves as white nationalist; however, white supremacist is a more accurate description. Rock8591 (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A more accurate description? I suggest you check the dictionary and consult white nationalists as to what their views actually are. Browsing their forum to read random comments and then taking those comments out of context is an unacceptable way to ascertain their views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.150.5 (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect you know little about the subject and are biased. 86.44.150.5 (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect you know little about the subject and are biased. By your logic, since white nationalists say that they are not supremacists, a person who pleads innocent during a trial is actually for sure to be 100% innocent. Again, it is 100% true that SF refers to themselves as white nationalist; however, white supremacist is a more accurate description - just like I can call myself God, though human being is a more accurate description. European Americans United is white nationalist, Stormfront is white supremacist. Rock8591 (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Your assumption that they are White "Supremacists" goes unsupported. Yes, they claim they are White Nationalists, and we all know people can lie, but that itself is not proof that they are supremacists. The majority are not, if you have ever been to the forum you would know that. The mods and older members are usually more likely to be White Nationalists - the younger and newer members as White Supremacists. In the Science forum for example, claiming that Whites are superior will get you banned from it (after a warning or two).

The fact is, they claim to be White Nationalists, the majority are, and White Nationalism and White Supremacy are two different things. 70.119.244.15 (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

":::::The fact is, they claim to be White Nationalists, but the majority are not. (Fixed) Rock8591 (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Propagandist-censor-Rock - If a white person loves their people, their race, you obviously consider them evil supremacists – regardless of any evidence presented to the contrary. Some questions for you. If black people show love for their race, are they "supremacists"? If asian people show love for their race, are they "supremacists"? If jewish people feel love for their tribe, are they "supremacists"? Just curious? Please answer. Either you or censor GORDON.

I find your logic to be lacking....that typical of a left-wing zealot. Different standards for different people. On wiki, you have the following entry for "brown pride" - <<<The slogan has been used by Latinos (especially of Native American descent) to denote a feeling of self-respect, celebrating one's heritage, and being proud of one's personal worth. >>>> Wiki even has a link to brownpride.com under the “brown pride” entry. I have been to brownpride.com on many occasions. If you go to the forums section, you can see Hispanics viciously attacking white and black people.

So, it is pretty clear to me, and hopefully to honest, consistent and fair viewers, that wackypedia's standards are two-faced. When whites have pride, it's evil and supremacist. When non-whites have pride, it's worthy, liberating, and quaint.24.176.211.211 (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

What suggestions do you have for improving the article? Nobody cares at all what your personal opinion is. Article talk pages are solely for discussing improvements to the article, not rants. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

My point, 24.176.211.211, is that to have Stormfront themselves come and edit this page is nonsensical. Wikipedia is not a fan-site, nor an opportunity promote a website. It is a tertiary source designed to report and shed light on a subject that is Stormfront.org. The point of the matter is, no third-party independent peer-review source has or will ever speak positively about SF - what Don Black himself says is moot, because there is a conflict of interest as you cannot see. Btw, I am not a moderator here feel free to rant elsewhere. rock8591 22:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)

Whoa, internet tough guy, take it easy now. My contribution is that you, and other editors are apparently incapable of reason with this entry. Multiple posters have shown why stormfront should not be regarded as "supremacist", but their evidence was disregarded, not based on any rational reason, but just based on the opinion of the moderator (rock). White pride does not equate with hate any more than black pride or jewish pride equates with hate. That is my point. Both you and rock apparently can not see this double-standard. Are there other moderators that could be brought in to resolve this? I do not think that you or "rock8591" have any concern for balance with this wikipedia entry. You are very hostile and non-accepting of alternate points of view. Your "toleration" for a "diversity" of opinions has been tried and found to be lacking.24.176.211.211 (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOTAFORUM. Is there any material from reliable sources you feel should be added to the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody cares about your opinion; unless you can cite a source to improve the article (no, you cannot cite stormfront.org itself obviously), then whatever you say is merely mental your own opinion. --rock8591 02:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

jayjg, From the "notaforum" link I quote "commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view."

I would like to emphasize "neutral point of view". To describe one group of people that have pride in their race (whites in this case) "supremacist", while not describing other groups that do the same (like the nation of islam) is not neutral. Far from it, it reveals bias on the part of wiki editors. It is a trend that I have seen with non-factual related wiki entries. Wiki is an excellent source of information for apolitical topics (weather, hard sciences, etc). However, when it comes to sociological issues, political issues and the like, the leftist slant is very obvious. The entries for Stormfront and NOI reveal this left wing bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.211.211 (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:TALK as well. Particularly the first two sentences, which read: "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." Now, is there any material from reliable sources you feel should be added to the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, we'll fix it for everyone. Stormfront is a White Nationalist AND White Supremacist forum. That fixes up any loose ends. I don't see why this will cause any problems, because in this case, regardless of whether or not these terms mean the same thing, both terms are definitely applicable for Stormfront. --rock8591 00:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Minutemen

I would like to know why the Minutemen are included under such a hateful section. I understand the powerful influence of some who would attach a lot of the Minutemen's rhetoric to such groups as they oppose; but the ideological foundation of the Minuteman is *not* racial purity, but a discussion on the allowance (or disallowance) of immigration of the illegal variety.

Please remove or restructure this section in its entirety, "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."[37] " Failing that, please qualify the statement in accordance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flashoverride (talk • contribs) 11:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It'd be good to see a quote from the page referenced. I've had trouble finding reference to the Order of the Stars and Bars as a racist organisation, though Ms. Jones seems to see many organisations connected to the civil war (including reenactors) as tools of white (male, Christian, capitalist) power. The passing reference to Stormfront doesn't seem particularly important as part of the piece. Nevard (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[http://books.google.com/books?id=tY_2Ob3_gRQC&pg=PP1&dq=reinventing+critical+pedagogy "...organizations like the Minutemen, the Military Order of Stars and Bars, and Stormfront.org credit their mission to the myth of an America created, built and ideologically grounded by white people of European descent. Although the Minutemen carefully avoid using racist discourse in the publicity, the latter two organizations are proudly white supremacist." Page 39 of the linked edition. I don't see the problem with using this; personal disagreement of editors with what the sources say, is, as we have been through time and time again, not enough to justify removing it.  Skomorokh  07:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, what actually makes this relevant to the article? I mean, looking at the other articles in the book, it looks great- if you're an educator who wants to use revolutionary mathematics to fight the power. It's hardly a work of history, or even sociology. Nevard (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, the "founding myth of an America "created, built, and ideologically grounded by the descendants of white Europeans."" section is rather offensive. This isn't Romus and Remus stuff- the Founding Fathers were, in fact, European, whatever some irrelevant sociologist may think. Nevard (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Founding Fathers didn't "build" America themselves, though, they (mostly) relied on African slave labor to do so. So Ms. Jones has a point. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The founding fathers built America?? You mean to say that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Patrick Henry, and John Hancock developed all the technology of today? Built all the skyscrapers, big cities, and suburban housing developments? Developed the nuclear bomb? Gave us all running water and electricity in our homes? The founding fathers in the 1700s did that? Wow, I didn't know that. (end sarcasm) In actuality, with the exception of Washington's army duty during the Revolutionary War, and Franklin's inventions, most of the founding fathers were bureaucrats part of the government, much like today's bureaucrats are, not invincible demigods. rock8591 10:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the specific individuals you mentioned obviously didn't manually assemble the United States or personally develop the technologies you listed. However, almost all of that work was done by white people of recent European descent. This country was built (literally and figuratively) by a bunch of white guys. To argue against this historical fact is misguided and ignores the real issue; the race of America's founders and historical innovators is irrelevant. The major historical contributors to America's development were white out of coincidence, because of the conduit of immigration between Europe and America and the pervasive racism of the time which suppressed intellectual contribution by non-whites. This correlation between white skin and contribution to the development of America is merely that - a non-causative correlation easily explained by outside factors. It's no more legitimate for whites now to claim racial pride or superiority due to these historical figures' work than it is for current black Americans to claim oppression due to slavery from that same era.70.190.25.139 (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Are we sure this is a reliable source for this purpose? I mean, the source doesn't go into any great detail about the Minuteman claim or how the author is so sure about their racist beliefs given that the author says that they don't use them in public. Frankly, the book in question also reads more like a propaganda piece than a reliable source. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually this is moot since the Minutemen are not currently mentioned in the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"Tactics"

I would suggest that this is an inappropriate characterisation. Yes, if we use the definition of tactics as something along the lines of an action taken to achieve an objective, then yes stormfront has tactics. However, so does wikipedia and almost every other organisation. The article here clearly shows that the purpose of stormfront is to advance a bigoted and racist agenda. We do not need section headings like "tactics" to bring this home.

Its a POV term. Wikipedians are encouraged to be bold and make changes to improve articles in line with policy and common sense. One should not require to seek consensus before changing or removing such a term. It is important to ensure consensus (or lack of overt opposition) before making more substantive changes, but removing weasel words, peacock terms, and non neutral language should always be permitted.

On the issue of MLK.org. Yes, they made a website. Yes they attempt to discredit MLK. Yes, it has been suggested that their website is misleading. It is not in order to say that they attempt to hide that the site is operated by a racist group. The ABC cite doesn't say it. The website prominently displays stormfront hosting on the front page. Suggesting anything else without a cite claiming the website disguises its publisher is original research.

Beganlocal (talk) 10:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't meet WP:AVOID and there is nothing wrong with the word tactics. I suggest we follow what the sources say. Also, being bold is fine unless someone challenges you. Then WP:BRD applies. Verbal chat 10:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Re BRD you are correct. Lets discuss.

I object to the phrase "while hiding the fact that the website is operated by a racist group." I think the nature of the website can be understood without this sentence. Hiding implies a deliberate intent which it is inappropriate for us to infer as it is not in the primary sources. Aside from this the website itself makes the stormfront link clear - however there is an argument for removing the sentence- unsourced - without resorting to OR by checking if the page does in fact "hide" anything.

Whether the section should be headed "Tactics" is another matter. I suggest we talk around that point some more, perhaps with reference to conventions (if any) which may apply, and what people consider to be common sense.

Beganlocal (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, you are incorrect about WP:BRD your challenge is weak, and WP:BURDEN applies. I agree with Beganlocal's argument. I don't think the source said that Stormfront was hiding the fact it operates martinlutherking.org, I agree the site discredits King. If the site is misleading and given that stormfront is a major site it should be easy to find a reliable source saying how the site is misleading. Then when this happens a quote should be provided from this source, or if it is paraphrased the source should directly support the statement included.

On the topic of "TACTICS" originally it was a heading for POV and OR, much of which I deleted. There is a quote talking about how Stormfront uses pseudoscience etc, and that's NPOV because it is quoted and referenced. Saying that starting Martin Luther King is a tactical move implies that it is not a truthful site, that is not for you to say. If the site is untruthful then by all means find a reliable soruce to support that position.Goramon (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Stormfront prohibiting violent threats etc

I see why certain editors want to edit the line about Stormfront prohibiting this and that, when such a policy seems like a PR exercise and may not be genuinely enforced. However, you can say the same thing about nations. I live in Australia and assaults are prohibited here, but there are many fights/assaults and little police enforcement or investigation. This doesn't prove that assault isn't prohibited in Australia. That's a side note, my real point is that if you want to include a quote about the skepticism that some reliable sources have about the enforcement of the policy, then fine quote them. Even if the source isn't reliable but notable, a quote will usually allow for inclusion. Many wikipedians, and more often than not admins, think that if an article deals with politically incorrect topics they have free reign to violate WP:NPOV, and reverse WP:BURDEN in order to attack the politically incorrect viewpoint. This may as well become policy if policy is to reflect common practice. However, the spirit of the project is that the more controversial the topic, the more core policies should be adhered to.Goramon (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the above that justifies the removal of information sourced to an WP:RS, and replacing it with WP:SELFPUB material from the group themselves. Verbal chat 10:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB policy seems to actually specifically allow for this type of claim "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is not unduly self-serving etc" what we have to determine is whether it's unduly self serving. I don't know, afiak there isn't a good source put in for this information.

As for the WP:RS "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". So as per WP:Burden"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material .... The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article.". WP:ASF states "It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution".[3] A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is.".

So simply I would like you to meet the burden of evidence, by including a quote from this book "Pornograph : film and culture" and attributing the views to the author of the book rather than to a mass attribution in the text of the article.Goramon (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The claim is contested by an non-selfpub RS, which therefore has precedence over the "everything is fine" self-pub claim. Verbal chat 11:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So now you are trying to argue about what is true? That's not your role WP:NOTTRUTH. Just follow WP:ASF and all will be fine. I don't have a problem with that book being used a source, I just want a quote and not a mass attribution and no weasel words in the section about stormfront policy. What i would actually like is a sentence referenced to a stormfront policy page saying "Stormfront has a stated policy of ....blah blah" that's more neutral imho. Unless somebody else thinks saying "stated" is implying that i'm passing judgment on the reliability of the source.Goramon (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

We have a well-sourced claim. It is reliably sourced. It can't be removed simply because the people in question claim otherwise. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't have a well sourced claim. I don't know what the book said, but the sentence in wikipedia is a mass attribution. Also it's not being removed because Stormfront claim otherwise or because it's not true (may or may not be), it's being removed because it's not meeting the burden of proof and is not properly credited in the text. I would have no objection to a properly written sentence using that source. However, I don't have that book so I can't go and write it properly. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material .... The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article. Goramon (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic. The sentence is attributed to the people in question. There's no issue here. The sentence more than meets WP:V. You can't just assume that the sentence doesn't fit what you want because you don't like it. I don't have a copy of the book either and you know what? It doesn't matter. The editor who added the sentence in did, and we can rely on that person having read the text as we always do for books. Please stop trying to whitewash this article. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is the sentence "However, others say that only blatant hate and calls for violence are kept off the opening page" and it's referenced to a page in a book. What's wrong with it?

1. It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution".[3] A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. from WP:ASF

2. "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made" I don't know what the book actually said. If i was confident that the sentence was an accidental mass attribution I would rewrite it "Peter Lehman wrote that only blatant hate and calls for violence are kept off the opening page." or something similar, but I can't write that because I don't have the source and it may say something different.

3. JoshuaZ your argument that "I don't have a copy of the book either and you know what? It doesn't matter. The editor who added the sentence in did, and we can rely on that person having read the text as we always do for books." is not supported by WP:BURDEN where "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." That means the burden of proof is on you every time you restore an edit, you can't simply rely on a previous editor who you assume read the book and made a supported edit.

In closing, I'm not trying to whitewash anything. I would attribute this sentence to the author if I had the source but I can't because I wouldn't know if my new edit would be "unambiguously supported" by the source without reading it, and neither could you.Goramon (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The WP:RS provided meets the WP:V and burden requirements. Verbal chat 12:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

fail. Completely didn't address the mass attribution and difficulty in fixing the sentence without having the book. WP:BURDEN absolutely applies.Goramon (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

They are available on google books. Did you even try looking for the books? I've just read them and they support the text. Verbal chat 12:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof isn't on me. I just read the pages available from Google books "Cyborgs in Cyberspace" and there was no mention of Stormfront whatsoever on pages 163 - 167 (with pages 164, 165, and 167 missing). Page 221 of pornography film and culture wasn't online (if the book even goes up to page 221). My skepticism looks even more justified than I had imagined.Goramon (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In Reality Squared, Stormfront is mentioned on every page between 163 and 167.[2] Stormfront is mentioned in page 221 of Pornography: Film and Culture.[3] Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, as I said I just read it. Verbal chat 13:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nishkid64. Does the text quoted unambiguously support the text in the article? Does the text tell us how large this group of "others" is?Goramon (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Would it work to say "However, it was claimed in the book (ref) that..." and leave the "others" out of it completely? Pseudomonas_(talk) 13:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

We could achieve agreement amongst all parties if we attributed the statements to the books in text. For example, "In XX, sociologist XX said..." Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearly that's better; I meant in the case that we only have the book details, with an editor but not an author for that section. Pseudomonas_(talk) 13:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it would work if the claims were attributed to the author(s), or sparing that book(s), with no mention of "others" in the sentence.Goramon (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Word Usage

{{editprotected}} Section 1.2, National Attention As per WP:PEACOCK, please replace the word "notably" with "such as". Thanks! --King Öomie 17:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Stormfront White Nationalist Community"

If you visit Stormfront, "Stormfront - White Nationalist Community" appears as the title of the website at the top of your browser. Is that the only reason the article lists "Stormfront White Nationalist Community" as the full name of the site? If so, that's not a good reason--lots of websites have some kind of description which appears in the browser but isn't part of their actual name (e.g., "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia").Prezbo (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

poor article

Too many fake citations where some opinionated user adds their own original research or interpretation under the guise of citing a major source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.159 (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Please show us specifically what problems you're referring to. "Fake citations"? Details, please. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with you, are you incapable of reading and comprehending the article in question? Incapable of seeing the very evident BS, waffle, dishonesty and general poor scholarship of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.155.139 (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please point to specific actionable issues with the text. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I can think of one, but only one. The reference to it being "Internet's first major hate site." the Nation of Islam has had a presence on bulletin boards since 1983 and has had their website up, from what I can tell through domain searches, since about 4 months before stormfront. I'd think that means the Nation of Islam is FACTUALLY the Internet's first major hate site, and rather then using opinion pieces to cite that like this article does (since when are editorial works accepted as a citation for hard facts, anyway?) I'll simply invite you to check domain registries. Other then that, I really cannot argue with any of the content presented here.SoheiFox (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Four sources in the article support the description of Stormfront as the internet's first major hate site. Why do you describe them as "editorial works" and "opinion pieces"? For example, what makes the Dictionary of race, ethnicity and culture an "editorial work" or "opinion piece"? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Design

I'm tempted to delete the "Design" subsection of "Content". I don't think it is questioned that caters to a certain audiences. The paragraph is sourced but it is given too much weight. It makes no sense to give it room here since it reads as if it is aledging a cover-up that doesn't exist. This section might be great for an unbiased look on the design from a webmasters point of view (the tech side of it might be interesting). A fun line in a book needs to be worked in differently. If I do delete it (feel free to revert and talk) the refs are:Cptnono (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah... after poking through more sources I can't justify removing it. I don't know if "Design" is the correct subseciton for the info though. Maybe if there was some other bland info regarding its construction, features, and functionality it would make more sense. I don't know if such information gets any attention in the sources though.Cptnono (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

'Percieved'

Since there was a minor issue over that edit, and this page is hotly contested, I'll explain my edit here.

Whether or not the source says "perceived" or "perception" is irrelevant. The statement in question is not presented as an opinion, but as fact.

"Black established the website to heighten awareness of anti-white discrimination and government actions detrimental to white people" -Without additional explanation, the text carries the clear implication that the anti-white discrimination is a real thing.

As the assumption made (the country is rife with anti-white bias) is contentious, this is not appropriate. I saw two solutions- preface the sentence with "According to", which I've never liked, or ensure the reader is aware that Black was motivated by bias that he percieved. The term 'perception' doesn't necessarily imply falsehood, thus editors who agree with him should have no problem with this, as they perceive the same bias, and vice versa. In fact, the only individuals I expect to take issue are those who mistake statements that fail to explicitly agree with them for 'bias'. The aim here was to present the truth and let the reader decide how they feel about it (and I think I was in line with WP:NPOV in doing so). --King Öomie 21:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think you are correct and I support your edit. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Improper NPOV editing in opening sentence

First things first, I am not racist and I strongly oppose stormfront. However, labeling it as the internets major "hate" site is clearly a NPOV violation. There is no objective criteria used to decide whether or not a particular site is a "hate" site. The footnotes cited are merely the opinions of a couple of researchers, and have no scientific basis. Furthermore, stormfront most certainly does not self identify as a hate group. Wiki is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedic source. Just report the facts, and let intelligent people decide on their own how worthless strormfront is. It is not our job to push bias here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.181.243 (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• It says they have been DESCRIBED as a hate site. That is not the same as stating that they ARE a hate site. That description is sourced. Removing sourced material like that should involve discussion first, not after the fact. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Your edit summary doesn't make sense. You said "Stormfront does not self identify as a hate site. Calling it one is a clear NPOV violation". The N in NPOV stands for neutral. How they identify themselves it irrelevant to whether a NPOV is being used. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Too bad you haven't made the slightest effort to discuss it any further. It just shows how you are POV pushing. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Further, you CLEARLY didn't bother to read the source before you removed it the first time. You made the statement "It doesnt matter if some academic who has an axe to grind says so", but the source is actually multiple sources. Further, this was discussed above. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Opening Sentence NPOV issue

Sorry, I made a typo and wrote NPOV instead of POV in my comments. Now, just to make it clear, I would be quite happy if Don Black was raped by a pack of wild wolves. However, that doesnt mean that it is fair to describe the group as a "hate" site, or to get in the backdoor and say that someone else says that they are. Here is why: 1. There is no objective criteria that defines a hate group, so calling anyone a hate site is improper and inaccurate, regardless of how odious they are. 2. Stormfront does not self identify as a hate group.

Lastly, I know what is going on here. People want to paint Stormfront in the worst possible light. However, that is not necessary. Just like with NAMBLA, it is clear they are a bunch of degenerates. Stick to the facts, theres plenty of material there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.181.243 (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not buying it. Your changing "hate site" to "white pride" gave it away. The FACTS are that numerous reliable sources have described it as a hate site. That is an accurate representation of the facts. And save your conspiracy theory about "what is going on here". If you bothered to read the previous discussion, you'd see that I argued against using some sources that do have a bias. But you don't discuss anything. You just edit war. You're already in violation of the 3RR. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

My last comments on the issue of opening sentence

There is clearly an edit conflict here. I would like someone to arbitrate. The person commenting with me clearly views this as a personal issue, which it is not. FWIW, Im jewish and my girlfriend is black, so the stormfront crowd would probably be lynching me first. The reason I first edited it to white pride, is because that is what stormfront describes itself as, not a "hate" group. Upon further reflection, I decided it was best to take out that part entirely, as "white nationalist and supremacist[1] neo-Nazi[2]" is already a sufficient and succinct description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.181.243 (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You're still trying to edit-war your changes in. I accept that you have an honest point of view and that you're not a racist. I think Niteshift does, too, but you don't have consensus for that change. The sentence you want to delete accurately describes what has been said about the site. If you'd like to get others involved in the discussion, you might try WP:NPOVN. That's a page where issues of neutral point-of-view can be brought. But I doubt that would change anything. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the edit history and the geographical location, I think it is safe to assume that this editor was also editing as 85.136.78.26 (talk · contribs) earlier. Dougweller (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Amazing....you happen to be a Jew with a black gf. I'm gonna call bullshit on that. The only edit conflict is you. You make the change and then post that you're doing it, then edit war past the 3RR before trying to address it again. Even then, you give excuses that don't make sense. Saying that they don't self-identifiy so it isn't neutral makes no sense. If we can only go by what they say about themselves, that's not neutral, it's propaganda, which is something neo-nazis love.Niteshift36 (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP's edit saying a racist (Don Black) was a member of NAMBLA does make me wonder what his views really are. But that should be irrelevant, let's stick to policy and guidelines. I agree we don't just parrot what an organisation says about itself. By the way, the IP should have been warned at 3RR, not 4RR. Since they stopped at that point, I didn't report or block, but continuing the same edit pattern will be a breach of 3RR whether he actually goes over 3RR or not. Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• He didn't say Black was in NAMBLA, he said said they were degenerates like NAMBLA. Red herring. I didn't realize he was at 4 until I already had reverted twice. That's why he didn't get the warning until late. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Doug that the editor's biography is not (or should not be) at issue here. Let's not get distracted by that. The only thing that matters is the edits, the content of the article, and whether they conflict with policy. If we start getting into who's a Jew and what color their girlfriend is, we're on a very unproductive path. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Puplawski

The sentence on Poplawski under popularity section should be omitted. He was a member, but his murders have nothing to do with the site. It's irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaedra (talk • contribs) 20:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This page is majorly NOT biased

The person below me is under the impression that everyone from Stormfront is not racist, when the blatant reason the site was made, is to promote pro-white beliefs. The creator of the site was once a Grand Wizard, in the Ku Klux Klan. (Don Black)

This page has a negative bias toward Stormfont. For example, it labels the website as a "hate site" and "neonazi forum." Although it is possible that some Stormfront members would characterized their views as "hate" and "neo-Nazi," it is doubtful that many or most would do so. It is not appropriate to cite sources like the SPLC or ADL in the article since they are not neutral sources. It makes just as much sense to use the ADL as a source in the Stormfront article as it does to use Stormfront as a source in the Holocaust article. Having a controversy section is not appropriate in this or any other article. It is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia should stick to reporting the facts not other organizations opinions or suppositions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.202.49 (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Saying that the SPLC and the ADL are biased toward Stormfront is sort of like saying that the FBI was biased toward Dillinger. They're both perfectly reliable sources. Please stop and gain consensus before making further changes to the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hang on a second. Agreed, the IP editor has been acting on the uncivil side. However, there is a little bit of a neutrality problem with SPLC and ADL. The FBI-Dillinger example isn't entirely accurate. The FBI is a govt. agency with the legal requirement to go after someone who breaks the law. The SPLC and ADL are not governmental organizations. They have no legal requirement to do anything. The do what they do because of their beliefs, essentially driven because they are against groups like Stormfront (which is fine with me). They also monitor and track people who have broken no actual laws, just that hold certain viewpoints, then label them. I'm not trying to take anything away from either organization, but they are ideologically motivated. I've taken a couple of classes from the SPLC, get their weekly newsletter and their quarterly magazine. But I have also seen them make some questionable labeling calls and track groups that not only haven't broken laws, but none of their members had in furtherance of the organizations. Even though I support them and use them as a reference frequently in my work, I would really have difficulty calling them neutral. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Just attribute the statement to the SPLC, etc. No reason to remove it if it is clearly attributed. Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, if it is shown as the opinion of the org and not presented as straight fact, then it should be acceptable. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It's unwise to take anything Stormfront supporters say at face value. Far from being merely the opinion of the Southern Poverty Law Center, the view that Stormfront is antisemitic and neo-Nazi is supported by no fewer than 18 reliable sources in the footnotes. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you just go and take a look at the stormfront forums, many users there will claim that stormfront isn't a hate site, but you'll find tons of posts where people make statements about how jews are parasites, blacks are prone to crime and moral degradations, etc. It is trivially easy for anyone to look at the forums of stormfront and see that it clearly is open to hateful and prejudicial views against non-whites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.63.90 (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• And that is why we'd be just as well off to avoid using SPLC if other reliable sources are available. Why fight that fight, when there is a neutrality issue, when you can show it with sources that aren't disputable? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, since the SPLC is a reliable source and an expert on these kinds of extremist groups/websites/organizations, the SPLC's view should be featured prominently. The fact that Stormfront supporters dislike the SPLC is irrelevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Who said anything about whether Stormfront supporters like them or not? That has no bearing on what I said and I sure as hell hope that you aren't implying that I am a Stormfront supporter. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The supporters of Stormfront obviously don't like the fact that the SLPC monitors them. Supporters, in this case, would include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.118.202.49 above. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • How you perceive the ADL and SPLC as reliable sources conerning a white nationalist group like Stormfront is inconceivable. They are on opposing sides of an argument. Just as you point out that it is irrelevant for Stormfront supporters to dislike the SPLC it is equally as irrelevant that you and others support the SPLC. This article is heavily biased.--Northroad (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no "argument" on which they are on opposite sides. Stormfront is a hate-site, the ADL and SPLC monitor hate sites and groups. The former is unreliable, the latter are reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why can't a hate site be reliable in some instances? They certainly have an agenda but so do the anti-hate sites. Cptnono (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Under what circumstances do you imagine a hate-site would comply with WP:V? Jayjg ^(talk) 07:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, in the abstract, they could be a reliable source for who their leaders are, what activities they have planned or what their beliefs are, as long as they stay within the criteria under WP:SELFPUB. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hate sites, particularly the more sophisticated and notable ones such as Stormfront, are actually notorious for lying about "what their beliefs are". Jayjg ^(talk) 07:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• You asked under what circumstances could a hate site comply with WP:V. I gave the answer. The answer isn't incorrect. On a particular point, there may be V issues, but they CAN be a source on their own leaders, activities etc. I'm not sure if you realize that I've made efforts to keep the POV warriors from putting a coat of paint over this article too, but every damn thing I've said here, you disagreed with. You apparently have me confused with someone who is trying to POV push here or something, but whatever it is, I hope you get it out of your system. Even though I'm not an admin, I'm not a friggin idiot. Your interpretation of policies and guidelines aren't the only one. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't disagreed with "every damn thing" you've said here; in fact, I've agreed with a fair bit of it. I also haven't confused you with anyone, though you apparently have confused me with someone who has. My comment of 00:32, 7 February 2010 wasn't directed at you; perhaps you can get that chip off your shoulder now. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, you have disagreed with nearly everything. I made a coherent, balanced argument about not using the SPLC or ADL as the sources, but rather using the other ones without an agenda that are available. You've disagreed by blowing me off with "they're experts". I know who they are. I have contact with the SPLC on a monthly basis, if not more frequently, as well as receive their publications and email alerts and have attended their training. So I doubt really that you can tell me much about them that I don't already know. But they DO have an agenda. Maybe I happen to see it more because I am as familiar with them as I am. I happen to agree with most of their goals, but that still doesn't remove the fact that there is an agenda. The proposal to use neutral sources, which still say the same thing is not only in line with the WP:NPOV policy, it makes complete sense. But for some reason, you are bound and determined to include them and willing to totally disregard their obvious lack of neutrality. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't "disagreed with nearly everything"; in fact, I've agreed with a fair bit of it. Now, please desist from making further statements about me, particularly false ones, and focus on article content. Speaking of which, Human Rights Watch also has an "agenda"; does that make them an unreliable source on Human Rights? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• What have you agreed with? I'll be happy to see you provide that diff. And I'm not going to play your game of hypotheticals. You clearly have no interest in actually discussing the issue or trying to look at anyone elses viewpoint with an open mind. Instead, you just keep repeating "they're reliable". Instead of trying to improve the article, I'll back away and let you own the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah that is half my point. I agree that if they say the doctor who hates jews hates jews then what's the worry? I'm a big fan of limiting primary sources due to self promotion and warping of the truth at times anyways (overall not just in this case) but limiting it completely will be a challenge. More on point, the anti-stormfront sites is just as biased as the stormfront site. Just because they have the moral high ground does not mean they are reliable or can offer a commentary that does not need to be adjusted for neutrality here on Wikipedia. Keep in mind that it is not our place to say fascism or racism is bad.Cptnono (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The SPLC is not an "anti-stormfront site", and it's certainly not "just as biased as the stormfront site". Jayjg ^(talk) 08:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So because they are against racism means they are not biased?Cptnono (talk) 08:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Please review loaded question. Every person and group has biases; you, however, claimed that "the anti-stormfront sites is just as biased as the stormfront site". In any event, the issue here is WP:V, not "bias". Jayjg ^(talk) 08:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if dodging the question has an essay or not but don't do it. From your above comments it appears that you believe that Stormfront is not RS based on their political leanings but an equally outspoken group on the other side of the spectrum is. Is that correct or not? Do you wish to clarify? Cptnono (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's easy: Stormfront is not an RS, except for things that it has claimed. The SPLC is a reliable source. Verbal chat 11:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you somehow imagine that white supremacism and racism monitoring are at different ends of a political "spectrum"? In any event Verbal is correct. And I would add, the Stormfront is often not even a RS for things that it has claimed. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So why is SPLC OK and Stormfront is not. Neither are, or are even expected, to be impartial commentators whose writings go through a vetted editorial process. Anything SPLC says needs to be used with caution since they have an agenda just like Stormfront. And Verbal's assertions without addressing the sole use of the primary source at the lead of UAF makes me really not understand the double standard.Cptnono (talk) 08:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)