This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Interesting stuff, this. -- Nevard 00:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
“ | 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 |
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)
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)
Are there any specific statements in the article someone is disputing at this point? Skomorokh 22:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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:
Any comments/objections/suggestions? Skomorokh 21:24, 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)
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 don't object to browardpalmbeach.com as a source. Tom Harrison Talk 18:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"...and the first and most popular racist website." What is the objection to this? Tom Harrison Talk 16:20, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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. [1] [2]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[ 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)
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)
Beganlocal ( talk) 11:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
{{ 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)
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)
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)
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: [3] [4] Cptnono ( talk) 15:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
recruitment
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Interesting stuff, this. -- Nevard 00:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
“ | 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 |
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)
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)
Are there any specific statements in the article someone is disputing at this point? Skomorokh 22:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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:
Any comments/objections/suggestions? Skomorokh 21:24, 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)
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 don't object to browardpalmbeach.com as a source. Tom Harrison Talk 18:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"...and the first and most popular racist website." What is the objection to this? Tom Harrison Talk 16:20, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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. [1] [2]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[ 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)
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)
Beganlocal ( talk) 11:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
{{ 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)
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)
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)
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: [3] [4] Cptnono ( talk) 15:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
recruitment
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: More than one of |pages=
and |page=
specified (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)