Talk:Stormfront (website)/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

"Target" audience

You know, I've studied many posts on the site, and from site demographics, apparently the majority group to visit it is males in the 18-24 who have no children and received no college education; someone should probably add this and also that 35% of the audience is from the US, followed by India, UK, and Sweden. It's very awkward and difficult, I think, for the average white Republican to make a choice if he stumbles on the site by accident, say. Some posters really don't seem that hateful or genocidal as others clearly are; some of them really do seem to be family men down south who are just conservatives tired of liberal values such as gay marriage and gun control. It's almost like a very subtle temptation; I would daresay that most white Christian republicans (WASPs) would quietly agree with at least some of the ideas on the site, but I mean, the line between love of traditional American values and close-minded bigotry is a very thin one. On politicsforum, for example, a white Christian and Republican man was sincerely trying to defend his reasons for joining the forum against others.

It's very mixed, indeed. Obviously lots of the posters loathe Jews in general as subhuman, some even want them all dead, but then again, there's been very civil and reasonable discussions between Jewish posters and these so-called white nationalists also.

Someone might also mention that many people who learn of this site go on it by accident; I was searching something about Jews and I clicked on the Google suggestion, and so, I found out about this. Before, I couldn't even imagine Americans having such views. A 10th grader also asked on yahooanswers whether people thought it was a good resource for Holocaust research for his class. Orient12121 (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but we go by reliable sources here on wikipedia. We can't put original research into the article. If you know of a source which discusses the demographics, then feel free to post it here and we can figure out if and how it should be included. Please do try to keep discussion on improvements to the article, and not discussing the subject, though. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent IP edits are apparently coming from a thread on Stormfront

See [www.stormfront.org/forum/t962216/]. Dougweller (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

surprisingly whole site is blocked here in my office. will check from home in the evening.--Vigyani (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Stormfront spam

I don't know if any media reported this, but their spam has become unbearable in the last year. This neo-nazi =spam= site should be banned www.stormfront.org/forum/t854096/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.109.41 (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Banned from who how? We sure won't link to them, so I unlinked what you listed above. Without having to go actually spend time on that disgusting site, what are you pointing to us to read? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Supremacist vs nationalist again

The intro was recently changed by Kobayashi245 to say Stormfront is a self-described white nationalist[2][3][4][5] Internet forum, but it is described as a white supremacist[6] and neo-Nazi[7] website by most scholars and media. This has been discussed repeatedly in the past. NPOV requires that we attribute comments representing the minority (or sometimes majority) opinion, but not to attribute statements for which there is no disagreement in the reliable independent sources. For that reason, we cannot say "described... by most scholars and media", because our sources are so explicit and unanimous. We also can't present the topic based on Stormfront's self description and then follow it up with "...but", as if to imply there is controversy. There's not. We need to follow our sources, and our sources indicate that it is a white nationalist, white sepremacist, and neo-nazi hate site. Many of those ideas are not mutually exclusive, and we need to avoid implying as much when encapsulating our topic in the lead.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"This has been discussed repeatedly in the past."

Somebody has included reliable secondary sources where Stormfront is referred to as a white nationalist website, the sources were then removed, and this has been discussed? Really? I'm not seeing it.

"For that reason, we cannot say "described... by most scholars and media""

No problem, we will just have to reformulate the sentence and append something like: "though, the website/owner rejects those labels." at the end, like it's done in the Golden Dawn article. (You might also want to go edit that article, as it currently says: "Scholars and media have described it as neo-Nazi[3][6][7] and fascist,[8][9] though the group rejects these labels.[10]" We don't want somebody to speak for themselves, especially when the sources are so "explicit and unanimous," now do we?)

As for the rest of your post, read on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Achieving_neutrality :

"As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased."

Since my secondary sources are reliable ones, you have no justified reason to remove them. Furthermore, you are not removing the information, as the current version of the article already acknowledges it is a white nationalist website. All you are doing is removing the sources for that claim. Please stop your vandalism.

"Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process."

In fact, I have already done you the favour and rewrote the passage to achieve a more neutral tone. It is followed by references to exactly 27 other sources that claim it is a white supremacist and neo-Nazi website, so you cannot claim I am giving undue weight to the article. Not to mention the article in its entirety makes this very clear. The only problem you can remotely have is with my wording of the sentence. So please provide an alternative that we can both (all) agree upon.

"Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."

In fact, and as I have already stated, you haven't removed "my material," as it already says and is acknowledged in the description that it is a white nationalist website. All you did was remove the sources that claim so. See the current version: "Stormfront is a white nationalist and supremacist[2] neo-Nazi[3] Internet forum" Is that not an undisputed fact? Yes, it is. Good, now that that is established, explain to me how removing the sources to said fact, but not the fact itself, makes sense. Please also show me a Wikipedia policy that states that you are to remove sources to an undisputed fact, but not the fact itself. Again, the only issue you can possibly have is with my wording of the sentence. So please, provide an alternative that we can all agree upon, but do not remove my sources, as that is vandalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight :

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views."

This policy was written with fringe theories and their content in mind. In other words, it says what (and if) proportion of an article should be written with content from a minority view (i.e., Afrocentric theories and "black Egypt" in the Ancient Egypt article). Is there any reliable secondary source that specifically claims: :"Stormfront.org is not a white nationalist website. That is a fringe theory!" No, of course not. This is the view held by the majority; Stormfront is a white nationalist website. As such, I really don't see what reason you can possibly have to remove (vandalise) sources to an undisputed viewpoint held by the majority.

"Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."

Since it is an undisputed fact by the majority that Stormfront is a white nationalist website (and claimed, as by yourself, that white nationalism, white supremacism and neo-Nazism are not mutually exclusive), this section is irrelevant here. Unless, of course, you (and the majority) are saying Stormfront is not a white nationalist website?

"In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. [...] In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained."

The entire article describes and makes this very clear, so I honestly do not understand what your problem is with sourcing an undisputed fact. There is no Wikipedia policy against sourcing undisputed facts, so what you are doing is vandalism.

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Neutral_point_of_view :

"But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority."

Now that that's cleared up, let's see how you would write the introduction, and whether I and Wikipedia agree with its neutrality and proper weight distribution or not.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Woah. That's way, way too long. I'm happy to discuss this with you, but please keep your replies reasonably concise. Right now, we describe stormfront as "a white nationalist and supremacist neo-Nazi Internet forum." You'd like to change that to "a self-described white nationalist Internet forum, but it is described as a supremacist and neo-Nazi website by most scholars and media." This change introduces weasel words for the sole purpose of conveying controversy between stormfront's self-description and "most scholars". To change the wording in that way, we would need sources demonstrating that there is actual controversy. The sources you added don't do that; in fact, your sources are quick to call stormfront a white supremacist hate site themselves. There has, indeed, been quite a bit of discussion about whether we should define the topic based on stormfront's self-description, or by the description of our independent sources, and consensus has (rightly) been to go by our sources. You're welcome to get a third opinion via WP:3O, or present new sources which demonstrate a notable controversy, but finding sources which just so happen to use the words "white nationalist" don't justify the change you're proposing, in no small part because a "white nationalist" site isn't precluded from being white supremacist as well.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, please stop referring to the good faith efforts of other users as vandalism. You've done it no less than 3 times in your last comment, and in edit summaries before that. The community tends to take a harsh stance on that sort of behavior, and it's unlikely to advance the conversation in any meaningful way. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but removing reliable sources with no just cause is vandalism, plain and simple. Your "finding sources which just so happen to use the words "white nationalist" don't justify the change you're proposing" is a really bad personal opinion to exclude the sources. As I said, the most you can possibly do is reformulate the sentence, but in no way are you in the right to remove the sources themselves. Once we establish a mutual agreement on the introduction, I will reintroduce the sources, and any removal of them is both vandalism and information suppression and will be reported as such. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Information_suppression

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOVFAQ#There.27s_no_such_thing_as_objectivity :

"In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so."

You said:

"To change the wording in that way, we would have to have sources demonstrating that there is actual controversy."

No, that is incorrect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Moral_and_political_points_of_view :

"On certain topics, there is naturally less "expertise" and scientific thinking, and more "opinion". This is especially the case of topics such as morals or religion, based on faith, as well as politics.

We should then list all points of view, according to their importance, and, if possible, be precise as to who holds them. There exist some cases where the vast majority of political parties, politicians and journalists hold a certain opinion, while a sizeable minority do not: both views should be stated. [...]

Writers should thus combat this natural tendency of considering the point of view of one's groups as the "majority" and "natural" point of view, and giving to it more space and more focus."

Explanation of the neutral point of view:

"Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.""

Funny, since genocide being an evil action is a fact held by everyone everywhere...

Now, since you want to keep it short, all you have to do is write an introduction that you think is appropriate and is in accordance to the Wikipedia policies quoted in my two posts above, because the current version goes against Wikipedia's three core content policies and five fundamental principles (pillars), for the reasons and policies listed above.

"because a "white nationalist" site isn't precluded from being a supremacist as well."

That is just your personal opinion, not a fact I'm afraid.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually that's correct. And as I've said on your talk page, our policy at [[WP:VANDALISM] defines vandalism as "any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." We make that clearer by adding that "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." And in any case I don't see any of those applying here either.Dougweller (talk) 10:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know what you're referring to with "Actually that's correct," but in any case, here's what I've replied on your talk page:

Semantics, I know. There's a thin line between "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" and "misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia". But very well, I won't accuse him of vandalism any more, but it is still information suppression in a way. Regardless, I have said all I had to say, and now what is left is coming to a mutual agreement on how to articulate the way the undisputed fact is presented in the article, not whether to attribute the fact with my sources or not.

So, let's join forces and reformulate the introduction so it meets all the criteria necessary and includes my reliable secondary sources.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to take a more collaborative attitude. However, the current lead does meet all the criteria necessary, and does reflect all the currently available sources, including yours; it describes stormfront as a white nationalist and white supremacist and neo-nazi internet forum.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

And just as one additional note, you should read the rest of NPOV you didn't quote. Just two bullet points down: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." That's why I've been saying we need sources indicating there is a controversy. Right now, our independent sources show it is uncontroversial.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

"However, the current lead does meet all the criteria necessary, and does reflect all the currently available sources, including yours; it describes stormfront as a white nationalist and white supremacist and neo-nazi internet forum."

No, it does not. You removed my reliable secondary sources to the fact that it is a white nationalist website. See: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Other_problems :

"Wikipedia articles should not be making arguments in the first place. Simply state facts, cite the sources of them, and let the readers draw their own conclusions."

By removing the sources, you are suppressing information and are preventing the readers from reading the actual sources and drawing their own conclusions.

Here are some more Wikipedia policy-related reasons why the introduction needs to be changed:

Opening paragraph:

"The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it."

Thus, one should supply the circumstances as to who claims it is a white nationalist website, and who claims it is a white supremacist and neo-Nazi website.

A similar reasoning can be deducted from expressions of doubt:

"So-called can mean commonly named, falsely named, or contentiously named, and it can be difficult to tell these apart. Simply called is preferable for the first meaning; detailed and attributed explanations are preferable for the others."

Since most sources label Stormfront as a white supremacist and neo-Nazi website (no references are given to the "white nationalist" assertion at the moment), a detailed and attributed explanation has to be given as to by whom it is called a "white nationalist" website instead. Mann_jess likes to throw his personal opinion and original research around that "white nationalism, white supremacism and neo-Nazism are not mutually exclusive." Sorry, Jess, no personal opinions or original research is allowed.

As for the "weasel words" claim:

"The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution."

Check ✓.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words :

"If a statement is true without weasel words, remove them. If they are needed for the statement to be true, consider removing the statement. If there is a genuine opinion, make the preface more specific. Who are these people? When, where, and why did they say that? What kind of bias might they have? How many is "some"?"

Again, since most sources label Stormfront as a white supremacist and neo-Nazi website (no references are given to the "white nationalist" assertion at the moment), a detailed and attributed explanation has to be given as to by whom it is called a "white nationalist" website instead.

More reasons as to why additional information must be given, see:

Handling neutrality disputes:

"Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited."

Again, since most sources label Stormfront as a white supremacist and neo-Nazi website (no references are given to the "white nationalist" assertion at the moment), a detailed and attributed explanation has to be given as to by whom it is called a "white nationalist" website instead.

Facts precede opinions:

"For these editors to add their edits to the article they must take one of the following two approaches:

1. Resolve the conflict and add the undisputed/factual version to the article.

Ie. You say the sky is blue and I say the sky is red. The source of the conflict is the time context. Lets agree on the following statement: "The sky is blue during the day, but red at sunset."

2. Cite the opinion according to NPOV

Ie. "According to Bob Blusky the sky is blue, but according to Ron Redsky the sky is red."

Facts precede opinions states that the former approach should take precedence over the latter whenever possible."

Again, since most sources label Stormfront as a white supremacist and neo-Nazi website (no references are given to the "white nationalist" assertion at the moment), a detailed and attributed explanation has to be given as to by whom it is called a "white nationalist" website instead.

"That's why I've been saying we need sources indicating there is a controversy. Right now, our independent sources show it is uncontroversial."

Right now, there are no sources being attributed to the claim that it is a white nationalist website, only that it is a white supremacist and neo-Nazi website. Are you claiming it is self-evident that it is a white nationalist website, but that it is controversial that it is a white supremacist and neo-Nazi website, thus those two assertions need to be attributed, but the "white nationalism" one does not? At the very least the current introduction needs to be changed to include the sources for said claim, and for starters, I am going to make this change right away. Speaking of, I have found another source which is already cited elsewhere in the article.

If you think my posts are too long, that's too bad, I'm just citing Wikipedia policy that you should have read anyway.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Kobayashi, your attitude toward this discussion is still combative and uncollaborative. It's not just "too bad" that your posts are too long to reasonably parse. It's disruptive, when you've been asked to shorten them, and will only result in other editors not reading what you write. We do not normally cite sources in the lead, only the body. The fact that we're citing some sources in the lead now doesn't mean we should add more. Further, the first two sources cited for "white supremacist" also back up "white nationalist", so it is currently sourced within the lead in any case.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

How can Wikipedia policy be "disruptive"? You're not making sense. Read it. "Some sources"? Exactly 27 sources are claiming Stormfront is a white supremacist and neo-Nazi website. Zero sources are claiming it is a white nationalist website; until I added them, that is.

"The fact that we're citing some sources in the lead now doesn't mean we should add more."

Yes it does, for the reasons I have already listed in my other posts. Namely, currently it goes against Wikipedia's three core content policies and five fundamental principles (pillars). Why that is has been properly explained by citing Wikipedia policies. You complaining about the length of my posts instead of reading them is not very productive.

"Further, the first two sources cited for "white supremacist" also back up "white nationalist", so it is currently sourced within the lead in any case."

No they don't, but maybe I missed them, so cite them for me. It is also obvious you are not at all neutral or objective on this matter. Read the Wikipedia policies I cited above, especially the ones about neutrality, undue weight and information suppression.

"We do not normally cite sources in the lead"

There is no such Wikipedia policy. "Normally" is a weasel word and is irrelevant.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll also add I find it funny you're claiming I'm being uncollaborative, when the only definition of "collaborative" for you seems to be to "leave it as it is." I added new sources. For the sake of due weight, neutral point of view, no bias and good faith I expect you not to revert the addition. Thanks.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the two sources you claimed are referring to Stormfront as a white nationalist website:

www.stormfront.org/dblack/racist_021998.htm : (Funny, using Stormfront.org as the supplier) ""Stormfront" -- the only white supremacist Website on the Internet [...] Supremacy is presented as nationalism." Stormfront is described as a white supremacist website, nothing more. Trying to make the other quote seem like the article is saying "Stormfront is a white nationalist website" is an interpretive original research.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/600876.stm : "Stormfront - a site that advocates white supremacy [...] [Black] describes it as a legitimate forum for white nationalists." This is the reason why additional information should be added in the introduction. The author of the news article describes it as a white supremacist website, then he says Don Black describes it as a white nationalist website instead. This should be explained and elaborated in the introduction, as per the Wikipedia policies I have cited above. Now the question is, do I also include this statement by Don Black into the block of sources that describe Stormfront as a white nationalist website? (Edit: done.)--Kobayashi245 (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Can I interject something here as someone who was involved in the consensus that was arrived at before? You guys are trying to jam way too much stuff into each response. pick a point and discuss it. I suspect not many want to wade into these overly long answers, meaning that it will be you two arguing with each other and no consensus being built. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Kobayashi, I'm frankly not interested in continuing this conversation much further unless you're able to adjust your tone and work collaboratively. The attacks you're making in every one of your posts are out of line. The first two sources for "supremacist" are ""The Racist Next Door" and "Hate.com expands on the net". Also read WP:CITELEAD. This guideline is often implemented in featured articles by moving all or most of citations from the lead, not by providing 7 sources per word. Anyway, I don't have any strong opposition to providing all those sources (as long as they are in one cite) for "nationalist", so if that makes you comfortable with the lead as currently written, we can leave it at that.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That makes me more "comfortable," but it is still only part of the solution. I still believe the text should include an explanation of the viewpoints (as per the policies cited above), the same way it is done in the Golden Dawn article: "Scholars and media have described it as neo-Nazi[3][6][7] and fascist,[8][9] though the group rejects these labels.[10]" Please tell me your opinion about the GD article, as its content is relevant to the Stormfront's one. Should that sentence be reformulated? Should that claim be removed, since there are so many "explicit and unanimous" sources claiming otherwise? What do you suggest?--Kobayashi245 (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Your answer and suggestion about the GD article is also relevant to this discussion due to your removal of the following source "Hate.com expands on the net - [Don Black] describes it as a legitimate forum for white nationalists." Was this done under the pretext of removing duplicate sources, or because Don Black is not a neutral source? If the former, I'll have to insist in re-adding it, because the two quotes and references are referring to two different things: one is white nationalism, the other is white supremacy. In this regard, it is not a duplicate source, and should not be removed. If the latter, again, what are your thoughts on the GD article?--Kobayashi245 (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Or, if you prefer, as a mutual solution, it can be placed outside the group reference blocks, but then the lead would be something like "Stormfront is a white nationalist,[2][6] supremacist[3][6]," which just isn't right.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Golden Dawn article, and I don't know if it should say that in the lead. I don't think we should say the same thing here, because we don't have adequate sourcing to back up that specific wording, and I'm not sure it's entirely relevant in any case. I'd have to see sources supporting that wording in order to make up my mind. It might be that discussing it in the body would be appropriate, but again, that depends on the sources. Which ones are you thinking of in particular?

Regarding the removal of Don Black, it's cited the very next word. The quote feature is handy for quick reference, but if it doesn't compel us to repeat a cite multiple times just to provide multiple quotes. Really, we shouldn't have 5-10 citations for each word anyway; we should trim all but 1 or 2 of them entirely. Normally, we put cites at the end of the sentence to verify the whole thing, not each word, and not multiple cites per claim. IIRC, so many were added to avoid editors repeatedly contesting the "white supremacist" label, not because it needs to be verified 10 times... and repeating sources doesn't help us at all. If the quote really throws you off, then we could remove the quote, but I don't think that improves the article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

"Which ones are you thinking of in particular?" The "Hate.com" one and http://books.google.com/books?id=RonIunZ521sC (Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism in America, Carol M. Swain, Russ Nieli, Cambridge University Press, 2003, page 156). As with the GD article, the wording (at least in the book) is adequate for an inclusion that the owner, Don Black, rejects those labels.

"If the quote really throws you off, then we could remove the quote" That's okay, there's no need.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I read that page, thanks. I don't think that's really strong enough to change our lead. What Don is saying, as far as I can tell, is that both terms may apply to him and stormfront, but there are additional negative connotations that go along with those terms to which he objects. In other words, they just aren't his preferred labels. That being said, even if the source was stronger and he had said "those labels are grossly inaccurate", I don't think his opinion would be fully relevant to the way we describe the stormfront community as a whole based on the slew of independent sources we have. It certainly could be enough to discuss it in the body, however, but I don't think this particular source quite cuts it even to that level. That's just my opinion... you could wait and see if other editors chime in with a different view. Niteshift may have an opinion as well.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Reformulating the lead according to NPOV

I'll just open a new section, the other one is getting too long. So, continuing:

"Interviewer: [...] Would that be a correct perception [neo-Nazi]?"

"Black: [...] That doesn't mean that we are Nazis, but we are certainly going to be called that among other things as a matter of course by our opposition. [...] To answer your question, no, I don't consider myself a Nazi, but that's a term that's frequently applied to us and it's not entirely accurate. It's like calling every liberal a communist. No one gets away with that in the mainstream media today, but they routinely get away with it when referring to us."

"Interviewer: Would you also reject the term "white supremacist"?"

"I think that's an inaccurate description of most of the people that are part of our movement [...] today the people who are attracted to the white nationalist movement want separation. And so supremacy really isn't descriptive of what we want, the changes we want to see."

It reads pretty clear to me. It's an internet forum, all sorts of people with all sorts of ideologies frequent internet forums. What he's saying is that some members hold supremacist views, some hold neo-Nazi views, but that most members as well as himself hold separatist views, thus those descriptions are inaccurate. This is already mentioned under the "Content" section of the article (which also needs changes, since it goes against NPOV), by the way, so it is "strong enough." Another more direct source is http://books.google.com/books?id=GEUcAQAAIAAJ (Digital Media and Democracy: Tactics in Hard Times, Megan Boler, Mit Press, 2008, page 409):

"Don Black contends that Stormfront is not a supremacist Web site, arguing instead that it is focused on racial pride"

Why his view is relevant is explained below. NPOV states:

"In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space."

This is an article specifically relating to a minority viewpoint. Check ✓.

"However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."

The article itself in its entirety makes this pretty clear. Check ✓.

"On certain topics, there is naturally less "expertise" and scientific thinking, and more "opinion". This is especially the case of topics such as morals or religion, based on faith, as well as politics.

This is one such article. Check ✓.

We should then list all points of view, according to their importance, and, if possible, be precise as to who holds them. There exist some cases where the vast majority of political parties, politicians and journalists hold a certain opinion, while a sizeable minority do not: both views should be stated.

False ✗. This is why the lead must be reformulated with both views and properly explained.

Writers should thus combat this natural tendency of considering the point of view of one's groups as the "majority" and "natural" point of view, and giving to it more space and more focus."

The article itself in its entirety makes this pretty clear. Check ✓.

So, let's get crackin' and write a proper NPOV-compliant introduction, as the current one does not cut it.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I've already given my opinion above, so I'm waiting to see if other editors have an opinion. Just as a quick note, this article isn't really about a minority view, it's about a website. In the white nationalism or white supremacism articles, it might be entirely relevant to discuss the difference prominently, but we cannot and should not spend considerable time discussing philosophy or labels here unless we can show a direct connection to the topic through strong sourcing. I deal with that section of NPOV a lot, because I frequently edit articles about fringe views; it is an important part of NPOV, but it doesn't really apply to this article in that way. Anyway, let's see if other editors chime in. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The article is a neutral summary of what reliable sources say about the stormfront website. The lead is a reasonable summary of the article. I haven't seen a good argument for any significant changes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Jess, the policy states "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint," not "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint," thus it is relevant, as Stormfront is related to those minority views. WP:LEAD also states: "It should [...] establish context". Currently no such context is established. It also states: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". The owner of the website Stormfront.org contending to labels given to his website by scholars and media is important, and should be given emphasis in the introduction. Are you claiming his viewpoint is irrelevant?

Tom Harrison, what about you? Is the owner's viewpoint irrelevant? Please also answer, what is your opinion about the lead in this Golden Dawn article: "Scholars and media have described it as neo-Nazi[3][6][7] and fascist,[8][9] though the group rejects these labels.[10]" Is the group's viewpoint irrelevant? Should that not be mentioned in the lead, since others sources clearly claim Golden Dawn is a neo-Nazi and fascist group? Either make an appropriate change to the Golden Dawn lead, or this one, as currently the two articles are not given equal due weight and neutrality.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Everything is irrelevant except what appears in reliable secondary sources. What does appear in reliable secondary sources is presented here with due weight. I have no opinion about the Golden Dawn article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I have two reliable secondary sources where Don Black contends to the labels given to his own website by others. This is not presented here with due weight or neutrality at all. And this is what this discussion is all about; adding that information to the article. You're not being at all productive or insightful here. Have you even read my arguments? I have referenced the Golden Dawn article to show you how it is done elsewhere and what is lacking in this article, not because I am genuinely "interested" in your "opinion" about it, that should had been clear. If it wasn't, it is now. So please, explain why and for which reasons the Stormfront article should be treated in a different manner than the Golden Dawn article.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles are written by whoever chooses to work on them, and the editorial judgements made at different articles inevitably differ. What's done on another article has no bearing here. That said, tell me briefly and succinctly what exactly you want to add to the article and what sources you want to use to support it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Since you've reverted my changes, please substantiate your reasons.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, under WP:BOLD, such WP:GF changes are encouraged, even without full consensus.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Also: "editorial judgements made at different articles inevitably differ", correct, but we should strive with every article to comply with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:BIAS and always improve articles, and yet this article is still lacking. Time to improve it.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The lead as it is correctly summarizes the article. It's possible the source you cite could be used in the section on Purpose and appeal, but it would need to be presented in context without distorting the section. It doesn't seem like something that should be in the lead. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

No it does not. See WP:FAPO and WP:NPOVT's "information suppression." The article is lacking this information. I have greatly substantiated the reasoning for that inclusion in the lead through this discussion, and the addition is in accordance with all the Wikipedia policies mentioned in the edit summary (WP:BOLD, WP:GF, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:YESPOV, WP:BIAS, WP:FAPO, WP:WEASEL, WP:ALLEGED, WP:MOSBEGIN). My edit is not problematic at all, it is constructive, complies with the above policies and improves the article's due weight and neutrality, as well as the article in itself. Please read: WP:STATUSQUO:

"Finally, do not revert any edits that can be verified per WP:V and would be an improvement to a page, within the boundaries of other Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:Undue. If an edit can be verified as encyclopedic, and improves a page but you still worry that someone else might disagree, then let the person who disagrees with the change revert the edit. Do not revert verifiable changes that may be an improvement just to maintain status quo or to comply with the "discuss all changes first" approach, which may run counter to the Wikipedia be bold policy."

If you (or Jess) do not substantiate your explanation (in accordance with Wikipedia policies) as to why it is problematic, why it should not be in the lead (I have cited Wikipedia policies why it should, "it doesn't seem like it should be" does not cut it and seems like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT; and I have also shown an example of another article where these policies (which are lacking in this article, thus the whole reason trying to improve it) have been put into effect; and yes, the other article is relevant, because all Wikipedia articles should be written using the same policies and principles in mind, alas, this is not the case here) and which Wikipedia policies it goes against, I will not assume good faith and I will re-do my WP:BOLD. As you know, the next revert will be considered edit warring.

See also WP:DRNC: "If the only thing you have to say about a contribution to the encyclopedia is that it lacks consensus, it's best not to revert it."--Kobayashi245 (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Kobayashi, both I and Tom harrison have, indeed, given you reasons why we oppose the change. I'm sorry that you don't like our reasons. You are incorrectly reading NPOV, and using it wrongly to support this addition. Absolutely do not edit war to reinsert your change. If you disagree with the opinions of other editors here, then you should seek outside help. Take a look at WP:DR. Getting another opinion from WP:3O might help.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's do it this way. This is the new introduction as proposed by me:

"Stormfront is a white nationalist,[2] supremacist[3] and neo-Nazi[4] Internet forum, though the latter two labels are contended by the website's founder, Don Black.[5][6]"

Jess' reason for opposing this is:

"I don't think his opinion [is] fully relevant to the way we describe the stormfront community as a whole based on the slew of independent sources we have. It certainly could be enough to discuss it in the body"

Jess' reason has been properly addressed by me by citing WP:NPOV and shown to be flawed and not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Jess claims (again) that I am wrongly reading WP:NPOV. I have already addressed this and shown that this is indeed not the case, and that it is Jess who is reading it wrong. Jess thus needs to address my debunking of his allegation and explain why and how I am reading it wrong, not simply repeat his already-addressed allegation. Either substantiate your debunked allegation and explain why and how I am reading WP:NPOV incorrectly, or re-read WP:NPOV and live with it and with my WP:BOLD.

Tom Harrison's reason for opposing this is:

"The lead as it is correctly summarizes the article. It's possible the source you cite could be used in the section on Purpose and appeal"

Tom Harrison's reason has been properly addressed by me and shown to be flawed and not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. I am waiting for him to substantiate his explanation. If he cannot, he should have not reverted my edit in the first place, and I will WP:BOLD again.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

In other words, two editors have told you that your addition is undue weight within the lead, but could be addressed within the body of the article. "BOLD" does not mean "edit war". Wait for additional input, or use one of the methods outlined in WP:DR. I understand your frustration, but repeating myself over and over won't help.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the part where I have shown that it is not undue weight by adding that information into the lead, but by omitting it. You still have not addressed this and I am still waiting for you to substantiate and explain. Please do not repeat that "I am reading NPOV wrong," because I have already addressed this and shown that it is you who is reading it wrong. So if you think I am wrong about this, please defend yourself and your position by properly substantiating the reasons, otherwise you have no case to revert. WP:FAPO, thanks.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Mann_jess, Tom_harrison & Dougweller

You have accused me of edit warring, when it was in fact Tom harrison that started it with this edit. My change was a legitimate one that was done after WP:BRD where I have proved that your reading of WP:NPOV is incorrect and mine is correct, and thus it is undue weight by omitting that information from the lead. You two rather chose to leave the discussion than to respond and defend your positions. What kind of an editor does that? Instead of me being nice and starting this discussion again, it was Tom harrison's turn to do so, as my edit was completely in line with Wikipedia's policies. Now, for the last time, respond and substantiate your explanation as per my post above:

"You seem to have missed the part where I have shown that it is not undue weight by adding that information into the lead, but by omitting it. You still have not addressed this and I am still waiting for you to substantiate and explain. Please do not repeat that "I am reading NPOV wrong," because I have already addressed this and shown that it is you who is reading it wrong. So if you think I am wrong about this, please defend yourself and your position by properly substantiating the reasons, otherwise you have no case to revert. WP:FAPO, thanks."

Currently, the only argument you two have is "no consensus." That "consensus is against it" is not a valid argument, because that is only so because of your incorrect reading of WP:NPOV which I have already addressed numerous times, and you have not responded to it yet. Until you address this point of mine, and explain why your reading of it is the correct one (it is not), your "consensus being against it" is a personal biased opinion and irrelevant. WP:FAPO.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that, as a new editor, you feel that you understand our policies better than multiple tenured editors and a long-time administrator. I can't speak for others, but I left the discussion above because you kept insisting that I repeat myself, and you failed to properly address the things I said or take the advice I gave. I'll give you that advice again: when involved in an intractable dispute, it is often best to lean on the advice in WP:DR; try WP:DRN, or seek a third opinion. I've also given you multiple routes for including content like this, without violating our policies. Namely, by finding another source, or proposing inclusion in the article body. Your proposal does not belong in the lead (which is a summary of the body) with the provided source.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

And note that essays such as the 2 (or more) you've linked are just essays, not guidelines, let alone policies. And surely it's 3 people who disagree with you - as in your section heading - not 2? Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Add me to the list of editors that think that Mann_Jess et al. have it correct. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Mann_jess, I keep insisting that you explain your reasoning on your interpretation of WP:NPOV under due and undue weight, which you have not done yet. I am not insisting you repeat yourself, I am insisting you explain yourself. You claimed that information does not belong in the lead because the article is not about a minority view, when I have informed you that it does not have to be about a minority view, but simply related to it.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

And here is another article where the same source that I am proposing in this article is used in exactly the same manner in the lead: He rejects these accusations himself, saying that his views are reasonable and moderate.[6] The source being "Swain, Carol M.; Nieli, Russell, eds. (2003). Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism in America," and let's not forget, I have two credible sources, not one.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 10:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as the Jared Taylor article is concerned: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Furthermore: WP:STICK would seem to be appropriate at this time. It was discussed, you didn't get consensus on your side. Please try again at a later date. Jarkeld (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

"When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons, either by analogy with existing or non-existing article kinds, are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Wikipedia:Five pillars."

Which is what is going on here.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I've already explained. You've just ignored my explanation.

1. WP:UNDUE indicates that we provide weight to content based on its prominence in the literature. Stormfront features as a white supremacist hate site very prominently in nearly every independent reliable source. We have only 1 source where one man associated with the site discusses the relative merits of using the term. We cannot therefore present the two ideas ("white supremacist", and "disputed label") with equal weight.
2. We don't have a source which clearly indicates the label really is disputed. Don's commentary indicates that there are negative connotations associated with the use of "white supremacist" sometimes, but he doesn't strongly object to the label otherwise. To say the label is disputed, I would like to see someone clearly indicate it is disputed, not effectively say "I don't know if it's really the best term to use".
3. The lead is a summary of the body of the article. Without presenting this in the body, it has no place in the lead.
4. This article is no place to discuss the relative merits of "white nationalism" or "white supremacy", and the differences therein. Any wording (like originally discussed) which does that, especially prominently within the lead, is out of place here. Do that in the appropriate articles, and link to them here.
5. White nationalism and white supremacy are not mutually exclusive. Any source which calls stormfront a "white nationalist site" is not indicating it is not also white supermacist. That's why we clearly present both in the lead. Such sources don't mean we should say the label is "disputed". We need a source that says "it's disputed" to do that.
6. If another article does something, that doesn't mean we should too. No one here will be interested in discussing any other article's content to justify additions here.

As I've said before, repeatedly, I am not opposed to discussing Don Black's opinion about the website in the article body, assuming that we have a source which does that clearly and relevantly, and assuming it is presented with the proper weight. That will likely require a quality, independent RS to formulate the right content. You should find one and present it here, with a new proposal for the article body, and we can discuss that. I am not interested in rehashing the points above further. Start a new section, with new sources and a new proposal. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lead include the website's owner's description of the website?

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

---

The "supremacist" and "neo-Nazi" labels are contended by the website's owner, Don Black:

"Don Black contends that Stormfront is not a supremacist Web site, arguing instead that it is focused on racial pride"

Source: Digital Media and Democracy: Tactics in Hard Times, Megan Boler, Mit Press, 2008, page 409 [1]

"Interviewer: [...] Would that be a correct perception [neo-Nazi]?"

"Black: [...] That doesn't mean that we are Nazis, but we are certainly going to be called that among other things as a matter of course by our opposition. [...] To answer your question, no, I don't consider myself a Nazi, but that's a term that's frequently applied to us and it's not entirely accurate. It's like calling every liberal a communist. No one gets away with that in the mainstream media today, but they routinely get away with it when referring to us."

"Interviewer: Would you also reject the term "white supremacist"?"

"I think that's an inaccurate description of most of the people that are part of our movement [...] today the people who are attracted to the white nationalist movement want separation. And so supremacy really isn't descriptive of what we want, the changes we want to see."

Source: Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism in America, Carol M. Swain, Russ Nieli, Cambridge University Press, 2003, page 156 [2]

So, should the lead be accommodated with this information, just like it is done in "Jared Taylor" (which even uses the same source (Swain, Contemporary...)): "He rejects these accusations himself, saying that his views are reasonable and moderate.[7]" or in Golden Dawn (Greece): "Scholars and media have described it as neo-Nazi[5][10][11] and fascist,[12] [13][14] though the group rejects these labels.[15]"

Why should this article be exempt from this and the owner's own description be suppressed from the lead? This goes against WP:NPOV. So my proposal is to change the lead from:

"Stormfront is a white nationalist,[2] supremacist[3] and neo-Nazi[4] Internet forum that was the Internet's first major hate site.[5]"

to

"Stormfront is a white nationalist,[2] supremacist[3] and neo-Nazi[4] Internet forum, though the latter two labels are contended by the website's founder, Don Black.[5][6] It was the Internet's first major hate site.[7]" --Kobayashi245 (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose As has been mentioned here, the preponderance of independent sources use these labels. So I support leaving the lead unchanged. That the founder contests these things is mentioned later in the article anyways. It is simply a fact that the site contains (white) nationalist, supremacist, and neo-Nazi posters and material. That's what all the independent sources -- the view of the majority -- say. The only thing that appears like it might be missing is "separatist", but you'll need sources for that beyond just the founder. Putting the founder in the lead would be to give him UNDUE weight. From that page:

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." (emphases mine)

So you have to substantiate, with sources, that Don Black's contesting of those labels is not just peculiar to him, but shared by a large amount of the reliable, published sources available or significant in prestigious ones, which includes the great mass of independent sources, and not just simply quoting him, but actually taking that view themselves (like articles rebutting the neo-Nazi and supremacist characterizations of the site), if you want to claim it need be included in the lead. Quotation is not enough, since it does not mean the source itself. and therefore other people beyond him, takes the view. What matters here is how much currency the view has among other people and organizations. If 100 newspapers were to quote me saying "the moon is made of cheese", would that make it a prominent viewpoint out there? No, since only I'd be expressing it. Don Black being the founder does not automatically make his view "prominent" in the world at large. mike4ty4 (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

So are you saying the Jared Taylor and Golden Dawn articles have to be changed and the part where they contend their labels removed, because there's more sources that say otherwise?--Kobayashi245 (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, per the discussion above, as undue weight for the lead. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: Undue weight for the lead. I've expanded on this very substantially in the discussions above, and there's no sense repeating myself again. We need better sources to consider including content like this, not more discussion on the same sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose as undue weight. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as undue weight. Binksternet (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support but... Out of fairness and neutrality I think it makes sense to give a brief mention of the owner's own definition of the site in the lead. Doesn't strike me as undue weight as long as it is duly balanced out with prominent mention of the mainstream viewpoint. But... I dont think any of the proposed wordings are useful as they do give undue weight to Black's view. I would propose "Don Black the site's founder states that the site's purpose is not to promote White Supremacy, but rather white pride and white nationalism".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as undue. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The word, "though", acts to objectively contradict the first part of statement. I would put a full stop after "forum" and start a new sentence, as per Maunus above. Therefore the group's denial is just another data point, not necessarily an objective contradiction of the accuracy of the original statement. Thom2002 (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per mike4ty4 & others. Support Thom2002's idea of injecting Manus' suggested statement into the lead.--JayJasper (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as worded, though I find Maunus' and Thom2002's suggestions to be more acceptable. I would tentatively support that, as long as consensus were that it did not violate WP:UNDUE. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Recent stonewalling attempt by ArtifexMayhem & Maunus

I did this edit: [3] and ArtifexMayhem reverted it: [4] and wrote in the edit summary to: "See talk page." I went to his talk page to discuss this:

What do you mean by your recent revert here [5] to "see the talk page"? The changes aren't discussed in the talk page, the current discussion is about a different matter altogether, so what is your objection for the revert? As I see it, you reverted for no valid reason at all, except for the sake of stonewalling.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Your edit reintroduced text that you've been trying to edit-war into the article for more than a month ([6][7][8]). It was not simply "Some corrections in the "Content" sub-section and the Infobox". — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? The current version already states that: "Stormfront is notable for the white supremacist views of its members,[3] a characterization that is contested by Don Black as an inaccurate description" My edit basically imposes nothing new, and the talk is about including (a version of) that into the lead, that is in dispute, not the edit I just made. Next time try comprehending what the edits are about, instead of reversing something on impulse for no valid reason at all. Take this as a friendly advice, because the next time I will report such behaviour. Now, revert your wrongly made revert, or I will. And stop stalking my edits.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to bring your concerns to the article's talk page. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

His revert was because he falsely thought the edit I did was the same one that is being discussed in the talk above. It is not. So, what are your objections, ArtifexMayhem? Instead of trying to discuss this further on his talk page, he told me once again to "go discuss this in the article talk page." Please read this, ArtifexMayhem:

"===Reverting with "discuss first" without discussing===

See also: WP:REVEXP

Also known as BRD (note that the D in BRD is struck out, symbolizing that crucial element of BRD is avoided by this tactic), probably the most common form of status quo stonewalling is when someone who supports a change makes the edit (or move), then someone who opposes the change reverts it with an edit summary that says something like "discuss first", or "no consensus", and then does not engage in any substantive discussion about the change despite inquiries regarding the revert having been made (if neither party shows interest in discussing, of course no discussion is fine). If someone objects to an edit because he believes it is opposed by consensus, then he should explain the reasons he, or consensus, holds whatever position it is. It's unreasonable to require the person making the change to speculate about what the objection might be, and require him to address it. Reverters should be clear about the reasons for the revert."--Kobayashi245 (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The edit removes any information as to why Don Black believes "white supremacist" or "neo-Nazi" to be inaccurate descriptions. It's not surprising that he doesn't care for the descriptions, and his views don't hold much weight, but just saying "Black disagrees" is not informative. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Funny, now the issue is that I removed his explanation as to why he contends the descriptions, whereas you initially reverted because you thought the issue was including the sentence that he does contend the descriptions (quite sloppy and rash on your part, perhaps next time you'll take the time to read the before and after versions, and not revert on impulse). Why don't you just admit you were wrong on this instead of grasping for straws and making up excuses? I can redo my edit and leave his explanation in the article, if you really care that much about his reasons as to "why". Personally, I think it's enough if it simply says that he contends those descriptions, and we completely omit his explanation, but since you're such a staunch opponent of this, why didn't you simply improve the edit by reinserting his explanation, if that was the "issue" you had? It's always best to try and improve an edit, not revert it. So what objections do you have if I redo my edit and leave his explanation in the sentence?--Kobayashi245 (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No. I reverted for the reason given on my talk page and for my objection to the text as stated above. Simple really. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Kobayashi245, you're bordering on disruptive. You know the material is disputed and under discussion. You shouldn't touch anything related to the discussion in the article until this is resolved. Stop acting like a POV warrior. (And no, I'm not interested in your excuses, justification or argument to what I just said. Any response will be a waste of time and go without reply.) Niteshift36 (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The material isn't disputed, it's already in the article. The dispute is whether to include a version of that in the lead. You should also try reading the article in full.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You've been warned before about calling editors vandals. Using an edit summary to accuse someone of stonewalling isn't acceptable either and I've warned you again. And now you are edit warring. Dougweller (talk) 07:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

And taken this to WP:ANI. Dougweller (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lead include the owner's description - without giving undue weight to other reliable sources?

As per the RfC above, 6 people opposed entirely to including the owner's description, and 5 (4 + me) support the idea of including it, but making the sentence neutral so that it does not give undue weight to what other sources say. So I am making a new RfC, because making a bold edit (which Mann_jess suggested) will be met with a definite revert, so there is no point in that.

So, how about changing the lead from:

"Stormfront is a white nationalist,[2] supremacist[3] and neo-Nazi[4] Internet forum that was the Internet's first major hate site.[5]"

To Maunus' suggested version:

"Stormfront is a white nationalist,[2] supremacist[3] and neo-Nazi[4] Internet forum that was the Internet's first major hate site.[5] Don Black, the website's founder, stated that the site's purpose is not to promote white supremacy, but rather white pride and white nationalism.[6][7]"

Do all six who voted "oppose" in the previous RfC still vote the same?--Kobayashi245 (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

We don't need an RfC for this. Let's just discuss it first. RfCs are only intended when discussion has stalled, and input from outside editors is needed. I'm not entirely opposed to that sort of wording. I have some reservations, but I'd like to see what other editors have to say first. I do think, however, the sentence might be better served later in the lead, rather than butted up against our definition. It seems to still serve the purpose of contradicting the definition when placed there.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I still oppose it. Leave Black's excuse out of the lead. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm an outside editor, so if my input isn't needed, just skip it. But I think it's mostly a fine change. An author's intention seems relevant to a subject about his work. Personally, I read white pride/nationalism/supremacy as synonyms, but there's probably a subtle distinction, and should be noted for those who understand what it is.

But it's wordy. "Website founder Don Black said the site's purpose is promoting white pride and white nationalism, not white supremacy." Wordiness aside, we should never write any form of "said" in the present tense, based on something someone said before. They might not say it if you asked today. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, no RfC. InedibleHulk, everybody's input is useful, thanks. Mann_jess, I personally think his description should be in the same paragraph, because it makes sense there, but where would you prefer it?

"It received national attention in the United States in 2000 after being featured as the subject of a documentary, Hate.com. Don Black, the website's founder, stated that the site's purpose is not to promote white supremacy, but rather white pride and white nationalism." ?--Kobayashi245 (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm teetering back and forth... I'm still undecided. One concern I have is that the proposed wording (no matter where it's placed) intends to contradict the consensus opinion we've presented in the definition. It reads... "Stormfront is X. Don black, the founder of the site, says it's not X, but instead Y". I read that as equal weight, and we cannot give equal weight to the two ideas. If we include that, it could be necessary to put Don's contrary position into perspective by adding more text on the majority view, and I think that would start to overwhelm the lead. I've been thinking whether it would be better to remove the contradiction and just put Don's intent instead, such as:

"

“ Stormfront is a white nationalist,[2] supremacist[3] and neo-Nazi[4] Internet forum that was the Internet's first major hate site.[5] Don Black, the website's founder, stated that the site's purpose is to promote white pride and white nationalism.[6][7] ”

I think that might be an improvement, but I'll have to give it more thought.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Black's comments do not belong in the lead. This is an encyclopedic article and predictable and disingenuous denials do not belong in the lead. Many if no most criminals for example claim they are innocent, and it belongs in their bios, but one would not expect to come across these routine denials in the first paragraph of every encyclopedia article about a criminal. TFD (talk) 09:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. This isn't about a criminal. If a criminal gets convicted, he is guilty by law, and what he says should be irrelevant. If he is not convicted, his say is relevant.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Don Black was convicted of trying to overthrow the government of Dominica, Duke was convicted under income tax laws, Ernst Zuendel was convicted under hate speech laws. Lots of contributors have convictions for crimes relating to their beliefs. Your view on being "guilty by law" btw is not in accordance with weight. Hitler was never convicted of WW2 crimes. TFD (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Apples and oranges again. That conviction has nothing to do with this, because the article isn't about that. Nor are Duke or Zuendel relevant. Of course Hitler wasn't convicted, he killed himself before he could be.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

We don't have a "convicted criminal" exception in WP:NPOV. The best I can gather, you're suggesting that that a conviction in court would give us a source indicating beyond any doubt that his opinion was unfounded (or at least not shared by others). It would seem this can be reasonably established without the involvement of a judge. Have you read WP:DUE yet? It contains a few bullets on how to identify the prominence of a viewpoint. As far as our sources are concerned, nearly every one refers to Stormfront a certain way. Where Don Black may contend that view, his opinion would be irrelevant entirely except for the fact that he's the site's founder. I still haven't settled on my view, but I don't think this line of argument (regarding convictions) is helping your case. I'd suggest sticking with discussing sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't bring up the conviction argument, TFD did. I merely played along, even though it is/was pointless. Yes, my position is that his view as the site's founder is relevant to be included, because it explains his reasons for creating Stormfront. It's like going on Facebook (website) and making an edit in the lead that basically says "Facebook is the world's largest social networking website, everyone over 13 can join, it's got billions of users and is worth billions of dollars" but not mentioning that when it started it was a small social service limited to students from Harvard...--Kobayashi245 (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see a good reason to put Black's claim in the lead. Do we need to follow it with a list of every authority who says he's lying? The statement makes more sense in a subsection discussing that statement in the context of the reaction to the website. Mangoe (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There is not a single source that says "he is lying" about it. The sources say he is X, Y, Z. What's the problem of adding the description of the owner himself as per Mann_jess' suggestion? It doesn't contradict the previous sentence, just adds to it.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems like the article should summarize the sources, and the lead should summarize the article. So, the lead should not be changed at least until the article is changed. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That is not a valid argument. The lead can be improved without also changing the article body. Secondly Black's "defense" is already in the article. The question is whether it is ipmortant enough to merit summary in the lead.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not. Because it's trivial - of course that's what he says. We need to include it but not in the lead. Dougweller (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, 7 oppose the inclusion, 6 support it, and Mann_jess is still undecided. I don't think this exactly merits a "snowball clause" to simply ignore it. The version suggested by Mann_jess does not violate WP:NPOV as it doesn't give any undue weight to Black's position. Since the majority see "white nationalism" and "white pride" synonymous to "white supremacism" anyway, what's the problem of including the website's owner's description into the lead?--Kobayashi245 (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Black's comments should be in the lead section. First, Black's comments should not be given the same weight as uninvolved observers. Second, the wording assumes that there is a significant difference between white supremacism and white nationalism, when the practical difference is nil. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that there is no difference is just your unsourced personal opinion and not a valid argument. The main WP:RS which is Swain & Nieli, "Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism in America," distinguishes three groups: "white rights advocacy," "white nationalism and white separatism," "white supremacism and neo-Nazism." Don Black belongs to the second group of "white nationalism and white separatism" according to this very reliable source, and it does not treat all the labels as synonyms, because they are not, regardless what your personal opinions are. His statement on what the site's purpose is does not give undue weight because he basically repeats what's already mentioned by other sources. It doesn't contradict the previous sentence.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've quietly followed this and I'm still against including it. I think Binkersternet is correct in saying that Black's excuses shouldn't be given the same weight as uninvolved parties. His excuse IS still in the article, but shouldn't be in the lead. And Doug Weller is correct. It's trivial. His denial is expected and involved, making it amount to almost nothing. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Saying his statement is an "excuse" is WP:OR. His actual excuse and denial where he contends the accusations has been dropped from Mann_jess' version precisely because of that, so the current proposed version has no excuse or denial in it now. It's a statement which other sources back up, and it creates no contradiction or undue weight. It improves the lead by adding the description from the website's creator; a non-contradictory description backed up by other sources at that.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• It's not OR, it's an opinion. There is a difference. I can express an opinion in my discussion. I can't insert opinion into the article. Please don't try to BS people with misapplied policies. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, you can express an opinion, but your opinion can simply be disregarded when discussing arguments for or against the proposal.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• . It is my opinion that it is an excuse, my opposition to it being in the lead was, however, based on policy. Please try to keep up. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Your opposition is based on opinion, just like Binksternet's, because the inclusion does not go against any policy. Facts precede opinions.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• I truly hope you're pretending and aren't actually this obtuse. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm gonna need a citation for that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Lol. That's much better than what I was going to say. Which wasn't that I think we can disregard comments about disregarding arguments. Dougweller (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I need to provide a citation to make it clear that one's inaccurate opinion about X is irrelevant as an argument. If somebody is of the opinion that 2+2=5, that is irrelevant, just like Niteshift36's opinion.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• How does it feel to be the only person who doesn't understand what is going on? My opinion isn't the basis for opposing it. You've proven you reading comprehension is suspect. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been giving this some thought. I've been staying out of the discussion because I feel I could persuasively argue either side.

• On one hand, the history and intent of the site are relevant to an encyclopedia article on it. If its author says he created the site "to celebrate white pride", then that's an important detail about the site's conception, and we should represent it prominently. You would expect an article on a terrorist group or notable criminal activity would document their purpose prominently, and so too here.
• On the other hand, Stormfront is not well known as a forum to celebrate "white pride". It is known as a white supremacist hate site. Placing Don Black's intention for the site beside the mainstream view of it is problematic, because it can either be read as a contradiction, or as equally weighted. To "balance" Don's view with the mainstream, we would have to provide more content describing its public reception, which I believe would overwhelm the lead. This nuance is best discussed in the article body.

I had been leaning toward option 1, thinking we could mention Don's original idea as history, but the opinions of Dougweller, Binksternet and others gave me pause. They are editors I have a good deal of respect for, and their opinions are usually well considered. You shouldn't simply disregard them, Kobayashi. On reflection, I've changed my mind. I accept that "white pride", "white supremacy" and "white nationalism" may be argued to be different things. However, it appears that much more frequently they are used only as a PR ploy. "White pride" hardly ever means taking pride in one's heritage in practice; "white pride" means celebrating how much better whites are than non-whites. In the real world, "white pride" is just PR code for "white supremacy". I accept there are probably uses where the labels aren't conflated, but I think our sources will bear out that the common usage is for PR, not to distinguish between views. As an encyclopedia, we should take great pains to avoid using PR language in this way. In the same way we avoid using the language of pseudoscientists when it is intended to confuse the issue ("theory", "treatment", etc), we should avoid using intentionally misleading language here. If we discuss this issue, it should be where there is sufficient room to contextualize Don's message and contrast it with the mainstream view, and the lead is not the place for that.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I respect your view on this, because you at least take the time to explain your position in depth, not merely state that "it's undue weight, end of." However, much like Niteshift36's opinion, so is your claim that "white pride is just a PR ploy" an opinion. Swain & Nieli clearly make a distinction, so I'd ask for a source which states that "white pride" is merely PR language, or that Stormfront uses that as a PR language. As I see it, there is no misleading or contradictory language in the version you proposed. We can even shorten it to:

"Stormfront is a white nationalist,[2] supremacist[3] and neo-Nazi[4] Internet forum that was the Internet's first major hate site.[5] Don Black, the website's founder, stated that the site's purpose is to promote racial pride.[6]"

"Racial pride" links to the article on Racialism, which some define as synonymous to racism, as stated in the article itself, so again, there is nothing contradictory in the statement.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

See white pride (which should probably be improved, btw). A quick search turns up many more sources. Among them:

• White racial and ethnic identity in the United States: white pride has historically been predicated upon a denigration of nonwhites
• Half the battle": cultural resonance, framing processes, and ethnic affectations in contemporary white separatist rhetoric This paper addresses those and other issues in an examination of the "new racist" (NR) rhetoric of contemporary white separatists (WS's) who focus on legitimating their movement using a cultural pluralist master-frame.... deploying ideas about "love," "pride," and "heritage-preservation"
• Joseph T. Roy, Sr. Southern Poverty Law Center In the same way, organized white supremacist groups often put up Web material that portrays the groups not as haters, but as simple white pride civic groups concerned with social ills.
• The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration The new white nationalism, in this sense, might be considered a kind of repackaged, relabeled, and transformed white supremacy that is aiming its appeal at a braoder and better-educated audience.

If "racial pride" really just means racism, then we shouldn't be using it for the same reason. We should use words that are going to be understood without being contextualized. If they need to be contextualized, then the right place for them is in the body where we have the space to do that properly. I know I've said this before, but if you're still set on including this, the very best thing you can do is find more quality sources which discuss Don Black's reason for creating the site. I'd be willing to reconsider my position if we had better wording that addressed my concerns above. I can't speak for other editors, of course.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The first source is contested by Swain & Nieli who write that "the white pride movement is a relatively new phenomenon in the United States, arguing that over the course of the 1990s, 'a new white pride, white protest, and white consciousness movement has developed in America'," so it can't have been "historically predicated..." This is the group she put Don Black in, and she clearly has enough professionalism and common sense to separate the labels as not synonymous. The second source doesn't define what "new racism" is (at least I don't have access to the full paper), a term the author coined. And it doesn't say they use "racial pride" for the purpose of hiding their racism and hatred of others, just that they do. The third source is a blanket statement, not referring to Stormfront specifically, and there is no reason to assume Don Black created Stormfront with that intent. If this were on the Don Black article, applying that blanket statement to him would be a logical fallacy and a violation of WP:BLP. The fourth source I agree with, white nationalism, white pride, etc. are obviously the outcomes of a racist/supremacist history, but again, this does not imply they are the same thing. One could easily claim the New Left or political correctness is basically Marxism/Communism "in disguise," since they're obviously the outcomes of Marxist/Communist history. And anyway, I'm fine if we drop "white nationalism" out of the sentence to just keep "racial pride," in which case the fourth source isn't really relevant. And no, "racial pride" doesn't really just mean racism, it's just that some authors think it does, just like they think "race realism" (the mere acceptance of the existence of distinct human races) is racism. There is no single definition, with anti-racist and left-wing activists yelling "racism" at every corner. Don Black stating that the purpose of Stormfront is to promote "racial pride" does not need any further context, and it is not surprising that a website based on such an ideology also attracts a white supremacist and neo-Nazi crowd, as affirmed by other WP:RS.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - BLP issue: Saw this at NPOVN while reviewing current issues. To me this really looks like a BLP issue. I haven't even read the article, but the general case is that in any racial/ethnic/religious viewpoint there may be a small number of "supremacists" who feel their group is better than anyone else and even should rule them, which generally is considered a negative viewpoint; and there may be a large number of "pride" people who want to take pride in their group, which can be a neutral or even positive view. It doesn't matter if it's whites/blacks/Muslims/Jews/Russians/Americans. Also, there is the issue of whether people actually have reformed; it's not wikipedia's job to ignore evidence of reform in order to keep bashing people for past bad behavior. To state that someone is a supremacist without providing evidence in the lead or anywhere else and ignoring what they say about pride, would seem to misrepresent them in a serious way. This is important to a lead because so many people will not get way down to the middle of the article where a person and even WP:RS deny it. So maybe someone should take this to WP:RSN if it remains a problem. Yes, some wealthy groups deemed "WP:RS" on wikipedia don't want these groups to reform because it would hurt their scare-based fundraising or their political strategies, but Wikipedia should not reflect their biases or promote their agendas. User:Carolmooredc talk 15:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Stormfront loves Ukraine Right Sector

Can't find RS on that right now, but looked at their web site and pretty scary homages to the Ukrainian movement. Something to be alert for. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Original Research

In the Controversies section:

"A link to the poll was posted on Stormfront and messages subsequently posted there implied that a mass of readers had duly voted in order to skew the poll in favor of segregation."

The source does not mention a link to the poll, or the intention to imply that a mass of readers had duly voted. It seems to be OR. Achinoam (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Violet Jones

I'd be surprised if she meets our criteria for notability (which does not mean she isn't a WP:RS.[9] So, no red link now. Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'd be surprised too. She is an associate professor that doesn't seem to meet WP:SCHOLAR. Ditto with Harris.Niteshift36 (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Homicide

According to this report[10] by SLPC since 2009 more than 100 "bias related" homicides have been carried out by stormfront users. Might be worth including.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

77 of those 100 murders were commited by Anders Breivik, who was banned from StormFront after posting a few times on the forums.108.21.6.117 (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)