Talk:Stormfront (website)/Archive 5

Context and specification

Per this request by P4k, I will explain what I meant by those tags. The latter, a request for specification, was directed at the phrase "join the military", where no specific military outfit was identified. As regards context needed for the hosting of Mein Kampf on the website, this factoid appeared one line into a section entitled "Views" without explanation. No relation between the views of Stormfront and Mein Kampf or its author is made explicit, and the reader is left to join the dots themselves. I think placing this text without context as to why it is relevant to Stormfront's views, cited from a reliable source, constitutes an insidious attempt at smearing the website with guilt by association. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 01:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Re the military: I don't think the sources or original discussions specify a particular outfit either, so there's no way Wikipedia can. Re Mein Kampf: let me think about it.P4k (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

After checking the source, they do specify the USM, so I have specified as such in the article. Skomorokh ^incite 18:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence about Mein Kampf, which is backed up by a reference, reads: "Stormfront hosts an online copy of Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf which is preceded by a description of Hitler as someone who "refused to surrender"." That looks straightforward to me, and don't see any dots that need to be connected. The sentence is appropriate for the Views section. Spylab (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I don't really see what's "insidious" about this. The relevance to their views seems obvious to me, what kind of additional insight could a reliable source offer?P4k (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Mein Kampf statement is true, but is not put in any sort of context, leaving the reader with no substantial understanding of the connection between SF and Hitler. The statement informs the reader about the epistemological position of Stormfront, namely the fact, uncontroversially agreed upon by the majority of mainstream historians, that Adolf Hitler refused to surrender in WW2. Should we also report on the adherence of Stormfront to the theory that the Earth is not flat, or that elephants are mammals, or that the sun emits light? Why should the endorsement of Stormfront of a perfectly uncontroversial epistemological statement deserve mention in its Wikipedia article?

The answer is, I think, without assuming bad faith on the part of any individual editor, that the mere connection of SF and Hitler/Mein Kampf induces the reader to infer notions about the values and not simply the epistemological stance of SF. Hitler=evil...Stormfront=related to Hitler...Stormfront=evil.

Unless editors can find something beyond mere support for consensus historical perspective in the stated views of the Stormfront organization, the Hitler/Mein Kampf relation too Stormfront is entirely trivial. I am removing the reference until such evidence is forthcoming. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 18:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

the mere connection of SF and Hitler/Mein Kampf induces the reader to infer notions about the values and not simply the epistemological stance of SF. Hitler=evil...Stormfront=related to Hitler...Stormfront=evil.

Yeah, what is wrong with this? The fact that they choose to host the text, along with the fact that they're white supremacists, suggests that they're sympathetic toward it. In the context of the page and the site itself the fact that Hitler didn't surrender is obviously cited admiringly, not as some historical factoid they thought visitors might be interested in. I don't know, I really just don't get your argument here I guess, but if you don't want the sentence there that's fine, I can't claim it adds a lot to the article.P4k (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's just like, your opinion, man. I agree, I guess that they probably approve of Hitler/Mein Kampf. But until there's an unbiased reliable source that says so, it really is irrelevant how you or I interpret that. I appreciate your magnanimity. Skomorokh ^incite 22:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Stormfront FAQ

Somewhat related to the Mein Kampf discussion above, I am wondering if we should treat this [www.stormfront.org/whitenat.htm "White Nationalist FAQ"] as representative of Stormfronts views. I can't seem to find any mission statement of the organization itself, but I am wary about attributing views to Stormfont they may not in fact espouse. It's very clear that with such a controversial topic and an article fraught with bias, we need a reliable source for the organizations views, so that we can present them alongside the views of their critics. At the very least, a reliably sourced defense of Stormfront would be helpful. Any ideas? Skomorokh ^incite 18:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is the same as Mein Kampf. The fact that they host it suggests some level of endorsement, but we can't really say any more about it than the fact that they host it. Since it's written by an individual author we can't take it as expressing "Stormfront's views." How do you think the article is biased, and why do you think it needs a defense of Stormfront?P4k (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is biased in terms of WP:WEIGHT; it's just a scattered collection of one-liners from various sources that give a very incomplete look at a website. My problems are basically with what's not in the article rather than what is, at this stage. Hence the desire to find further sources of content. If we are to maintain a neutral point of view, we cannot simply publish an attack on an organization without publishing the response - no respectable newspaper or academic article would print a one-sided polemic, so neither should we. Skomorokh ^incite 22:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. This is "a scattered collection of one-liners" but so are most wikipedia articles. I don't think this article is anything close to a one-sided polemic, but my interest in keeping this article npov is not that great in any case, so I probably shouldn't have initiated this discussion in the first place.P4k (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Another attack on White Conservative Ideals

Why is there a negative attitude towards White Nationalism but not Black Nationalism or the Mexica Movement. This article was stereotypical and generalized. There is always some extremes with topics like this, but that does not mean every viewpoint on the site is this extreme.

I think you will find if you read the first few lines of White Nationalism & Black Nationalism you will find them remarkably similar, as you will throughout the article. As for this article, it is a seperate issue, but most people would consider even the mild discussion on this forum extreme if they weren't racist themselves. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the revisions (not to be mistaken with Revisionism). A cursory review by the average person does really lead one to believe that it is a white supremacist website, because a large number of members adhere to that doctrine. However, the site, is for white pride, which is far different. Now admittedly, there is a slippery slope between pride and power, but if we are to be accurate, it's a white pride website, regardless of the number of extremist users. the_undertow ^talk 00:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It is white supremacy. That is what the sources say. The difference between white pride and power is very minimul. The users are not extremists. Secondly, Black, Mexican, and white nationalism are not the same. Only white nationalism is racist, as it is white supremacy in disguise. Yahel Guhan 01:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Because only European-descended people are racist.... Koalorka (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

All nationalism is, and should be treated as the same. Either all nationalism is racist or none of it is. I'm not buying that I can't be white pride without being white power. Racism is not inherent to any one race. This is another example of political correctness going awry. the_undertow ^talk 02:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not that simple. Racism can occur in all races, but not all racism is the same, nor is nationalism. Some nationalism is racist, but other nationalism is not. Nationalism is not racist in itself. White nationalism is segregation at best, supremacism more often, both racist ideals. Yahel Guhan 03:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to engage in any further lawyering. This is a page about the article - the article of the encyclopedia. If you want to explore the slippery slope of racism, you'll have to find another forum - as this one requires sources and no original research. the_undertow ^talk 03:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is biased.Anything that involves pride in one's European ancestry and heritage is always labeled "racist". I love my European heritage,but that doesn't mean I hate people who aren't European.But I do resent those who would insist that European history,culture and people should be shoved into the background while Afrocentrism reigns o'er all! Yahel above is the one who is prejudiced.Pride and supremacy have two different meanings.jeanne (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Snarkie

The article says Doug Hanks posted 4,000 posts as 'Snarkie', but when I head over to Stormfront.org and check the members list, it says that name was only registered in 2006 and with zero posts.

What gives? Can this Wiki article still be factually correct?

--213.118.143.154 (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for catching that; the reference does not mention the word "Snarkie", so I've removed it from the article. Skomorokh ^confer 20:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is going on with this "blog" thing?

"even reliable sources contain blogs." Wtf does this mean?P4k (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't say, but apparently The undertow feels that while blogs are reliable in the body of the article, they are not for the lede. Looking at the links in question, I fail to see how [1] or [2] are unreliable, or even blogs. As for [www.stormfront.org/dblack/racist_021998.htm], it is archived on Stormfont.org (possibly misrepresented/altered) and from a local newspaper, so it might reasonably be questioned. Skomorokh ^confer 22:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In general I think blogs are unreliable period, but those aren't blogs.P4k (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ref 3, with assertions like But it is becoming clear that any attempt to curb the right to free speech here will be met with fierce resistance. reads just like a blog. This is why it's called Breakfast News - it is just observational blogging. 5 isn't very reliable because it's one site posting info from another. It's not 3rd party, and probably some copyvio, not that it matters, we don't really need to double-up on sourcing. And when asked what the fuck I was saying about blogs, I was pointing out that newspapers, which are reliable sources, for example, contain editorials and reader's letters, which are not reliable just because of their association. the_undertow ^talk 01:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've posted this question to the reliable sources noticeboard. Skomorokh ^confer 02:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Responding from RS noticeboard... Actually, these are not "blog" postings... they are news reports posted on the website of legitimate mainstream news outlets. There is a difference. These reports are reliable sources no different than if they appeared on the television broadcast (in fact, they often are little more than typed up versions of television broadcasts) or in a print newspaper. Now, some media websites do have blogs... these are regular commontary peices that are the web equivalent to Op-Ed pieces appearing in major newspapers. In those cases, the news orgainization is acting as the publisher of the regularly posting author's opinion. Such postings would be reliable for statements as to the opinion of the author, but not for statements of fact. As for the NYT article also mentioned on the RS noticeboard... why use a third party?... better to use the NY Times article itself. Blueboar (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

White supremacy

At least five sources currently mention that this website is white supremacist. User:The undertow, what is your problem with stating this fact? Denying this is clearly undue weight. Yahel Guhan 04:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My problem is that these are not reliable, third party sources. If you want to say that the ADL considers them as such, so be it. But you are using opinions as facts. the_undertow ^talk 04:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

and SPLC, both of which are reliable sources. Lets not give undue weight to those who don't agree. It is widely recognized as being white supremacist. Yahel Guhan 04:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right, so when you call it 'white supremacy' then cite those of the opinion (recognition is this case is not fact) as per above. If not, you cannot use those sources as stating facts. Just because something is widely recognized as X, does not make it X. the_undertow ^talk 04:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally using 6 sources for one sentence is ridiculous and could be construed as obsessive. the_undertow ^talk 04:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There are now 7 sources for it (and more could probably easily be found if necessary). The sources are necessary, because there are people like you, who seem to be in denial that stormfront actually is a white supremacist website. There really isn't any real doubt that the website is white supremacist. That denial should not be given undue weight in the article, as not recognizing it as fact would do. It isn't like there are any sources saying it is not a white supremacist website. Yahel Guhan 04:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to prove that something 'is not.' Since you are having such fun editing, why don't you just pick the top 3 sources instead of being pointy by adding more than is acceptable. the_undertow ^talk 04:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

On second thought your comment Only white nationalism is racist, as it is white supremacy in disguise indicates that there is no way for you to be neutral here. You may want to consider that. the_undertow ^talk 05:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Pointy? I added 5 reliable sources that state stormfront is a white supremacist website, and that is somehow Pointy? Besides, if I remove them, someone will surely come back to deny that it is a white supremacist website again. Why are having all those sources which verify that it is a white supremacist website "unacceptable"? If there are no sources that say it is not, it is a fringe view that should not be given undue weight. Why is it just a "widely believed opinion," when so many sources state it as fact, and no source denys it as a fact? OK, so my views on white supremacy therefore mean my opinion is discredited? I think your comment on white nationalism means that you are not neutral on this either. OK, I have an opionin on the topic. I won't lie. We all do, else we probably wouldn't be editing the page. I base my opinion in this case on what the sources say. Yahel Guhan 05:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I kind of spazzed out yesterday but you could make a case for calling them "white nationalist" rather than "white supremacist"--it seems like that's what the more reliable sources on google books do.P4k (talk) 08:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yahel has made it clear he believes that white nationalism is a conspiracy to hide racism. Black, Mexican, and white nationalism are not the same. Only white nationalism is racist, as it is white supremacy in disguise. Since this is about a website that promites white pride, its motto "White Pride World Wide," not "White Power World Wide" then Yahel is has an agenda here, because white pride and white power are the same, according to his own words. Furthermore, you (Yahel) think that white nationalism is racist, period: Nationalism is not racist in itself. White nationalism is segregation at best, supremacism more often, both racist ideals. These are clearly the views of someone who has an agenda to push, besides sounding like one giant conspiracy advocate. You can't say that white pride is different from any other pride without being a POV pusher. And compounded by your editing habits, it is more than obvious you have an agenda. I would no more expect you to edit this article than for a revisionist to be at the Holocaust entry. As far as my comment - I asserted that white pride and white power are different. That is backed up by the two distinct articles as well. Maybe you should move to have them merged. This is most certainly going to end up at mediation if you do not look for some sort of consensus on this topic. It's clearly a COI for you to be here. the_undertow ^talk 21:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly what Yahel makes it seem like. I would wager to say that Mr. Yahel is of the Semitic persuasion or just very biased. Either way you only reinforce the stereotypes you try to claim to want to abolish. Self-hate and anti-white/European bigotry. Koalorka (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, mind WP:NPA. Second, I will admit it. I have a bias toward racism; I oppose racism. If that makes me bias toward racism, so be it. Does that mean I should not edit anything related to racism? Of corse not. Just like Christians shouldn't be banned from editing Christianity articles, or Jews from Judaism articles, or Black people from African American related articles. Banning everyone from topics they have a bias on will do nothing for this encyclopedia, and that is why it isn't part of the rules to editing. That is just rediculoius. Since you claim I have an agenda here, I will tell you what my real agenda here is: to improve this article, to source it, and to not let white supremacists vandalize it by removing all legitimate and well doccumented criticism, for which the website is notable for. While I do believe white power and pride are the same, both terms are notable, and I see no reason to believe a merge would be necessary.I think it is just as much a COI for you to be here as it is for me to be here, as you are also clearly bias on this topic. I don't see what is to mediate if no sources are provided that present another view. To Koalorka, no I am not anti-white. However, I am against racism by white people. Yahel Guhan 02:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, I normally don't get drawn into these types of debates, it certainly doesn't seem that way. It appears that being Jewish yourself you have chosen to eradicate any pro-European, pro-white pride by marginalizing and dismissing racially aware European-descended individuals as unevolved bigots. StormFront makes it explicitly clear that they're sole intention is primarily the preservation of their perceived "race", although some members do hold extremist views, they are not in the majority or endorsed. Now if you fought so passionately to label say the Nation of Islam or Black Panther Party as racially-motivated and violently anti-white organizations, whose leaders have even advocated the extermination of a racial group (possibly whites?) then your intentions would not be questioned. It seems that you are a strongly prejudiced, anti-white bigot. But that's acceptable these days, right? Koalorka (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Stormfront makes it explicitly clear that they oppose non whites, support segregation, antisemitism, sepretatism, and other racist ideas, and it is not just the extremists on the site (or most the users of the forum are extremsits) Even the founder and owner of the website holds those views. Not to mention sourcing still hasn't been provided to give alternative views. NOI is labeled a black supremacist group. BPP, no. That is because they are not racist, rather their goal is to promote self-defense and civil rights for black people. I'm sick of this debate, which has turned from the content to this article to calling me a racist, which clearly violates WP:NPA. Yahel Guhan 03:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A discussion about StormFront being white supremacist versus various other terms that have the effect of hiding that (i.e. "white pride," "white nationalist," etc.) is not new to this talk page. In my experience, whenever enough established editors arrive on the scene, the less whitewashing (no pun intended) term prevails. El_C 06:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(Un-indenting)* Koalorka, discuss content, not the editor. You can guess at Yahel's motivation all day, and I can make assumptions about yours - but that is not what this is about, eh? --mceder (u t c) 06:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Koalorka will be unable to respond for 24 hours as s/he has been blocked for personal attacks and provocations ("prejudiced, anti-white bigot," "Semitic persuasion...Self-hate and anti-white/European bigotry, etc."). Any future offenses will be censured far more severely. El_C 08:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Everybody here is pretty "established."P4k (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Logo

P4k, you said you removed the logo becasue: i don't think it's necessarily accurate to call this their "logo"; they obviously aren't the only people who use it, and it's not the only artwork they have on the site The logo is still used by them, is it not? Even if others use the logo, they still do use it as their own, don't they? Yahel Guhan 05:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see that it's on the site. I think calling it their logo kind of implies some exclusivity, though, among other things. I mean read the first paragraph of logo (or look it up in a real encyclopedia) and tell me if you think that symbol functions that way for Stormfront.P4k (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually fuck it, I found some RS's that refer to it as their logo. You're right.P4k (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because everyone is calling in supremacists does not mean that it is supremacists . They clearly have supremacists on the website but does that mean that all of them are supremacists? If so if everyone calls blacks criminals does that mean that all blacks are criminals or just a significant portion. You might want to revisit your sources and return to the original non-bias views of nationalist or separatist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsubitna (talk • contribs) 00:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Addition to the article

Can someone add something to the article about stormfront's new same-sex dating service? I think it's quite significant that this is occurring on what is generally considered a homophobic website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.82.191 (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you didn't dream about and now are mistaking your recollection of that dream as reality? A link to the "service" will do. Thx. El_C 04:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Don Black facts

I dispute this article also. Come on people, its really blatant. The article is about Stormfront but it immediately goes into an enumeration of tired old Don Black facts. Negative ones. Sure Don Black has a place in the article, but not like that. Stormfront is much bigger then just Don Black now. It would be the same as if I created an article on apartheid, and at sentence two I start talking about how mandela led a violent Leninist gang, authorized bombings, etc, etc. Or civil rights and MLK. Plenty of un-saintly tidbits there. What I am saying is it appears, to me, that wikipedia has an agenda here. That is, to scare people away from visiting stormfront. Whatever I don't care, but if this is supposed to be an encyclopedia... -jim80.221.137.43 (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose you're right, I mean theres no need to draw attention to the fact that Don Black is bisexual (in his own article perhaps) but SF is larger than he is, yes, so there isn't much need to go into much detail here. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

focus should be on the things in his life related to the website only. His views on race, how he came to founding the website, where he founded it, etc. Yahel Guhan 00:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We are all agreed then. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit

I think that the line "The Stormfront White Nationalist Community is a white supremacist Internet forum" should be replaced with the line "Stormfront.org is is an internet forum that describes itself as '. . . a resource for those courageous men and women fighting to preserve their White Western heritage, ideals and freedom of speech and association.'" This is what the owners of the site describe it as. If you want to throw the term White Supremacist around after that you can do so - but to simply state that the forum itself is a White Supremacist is kind of silly, don't you think? The forum can't be on a diet, it can't be angry, or do anything else that real people can do or be, after all. Besides, stating simply that something with 100 thousand members "is" something so specific and negative is very shallow, isn't it? I don't really care either way, I'm Korean, I'm just saying that it's obvious that the article brings some emotional baggage with it.

Craig24.215.137.13 (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It's described as a white supremacist forum by numerous reliable sources, so there is no reason not to describe it as such. I suppose it would be fine to include their self-description without replacing the existing description, but I don't see that it's strictly necessary. Natalie (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Have we fixed the issues now? Can we remove the tag? Yahel Guhan 03:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Done. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

One major issue is the characterization of the website as neo-Nazi: this claim requires very, very reliable sources. The last version included the incredible statement "The website is notable for its Neo-Nazi or White supremacist views", followed by the "white supremacy" reference. Equivocation like this is extremely disappointing to see in a Wikipedia article. I would hope we aspire to better than this. Skomorokh 16:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Incredible"? It's quite credible; the distinction between utterly racist and neo-nazi is a fine one, and is hardly a Godwin's law application when referring to Stormfront but rather a logical conclusion. You're right that we need a reliable source establishing Stormfront as neo-Nazi, as opposed to garden-variety paleo-Nazi or just plain bigots. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a world of a difference between "I think my ethnic group is, one the whole, somewhat better than yours" and "I support the wholesale slaughter of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies etc." It's always suspicious when an open political movement is given a label its members would not self-identify as. A cursory reading of the Stormfront forum leaves me with the impression nothing more than xenophobic tribalist collectivism. Of course, we have to represent the lazy smear journalism that the forum is "white supremacist" because the mainstream is always right, but the neo-Nazi claim at least, should be left out until we have a source of some degree more of integrity than Bill O'Reilly. Skomorokh 20:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's setting the bar pretty low. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection

After my request, this article has been unprotected. Things may get nasty, be advised for IP vandalism. Skomorokh 22:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Added something

I have added the term "generally thought to be" before the whole "white supremacist" thing. This way, there should be no conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.237.249 (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Nah. We like to avoid weasel words on Wikipedia. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Not always. By removing generally, you make it definitive, which is not the case. It is 'generally' or 'widely' considered, but it is obviously not black and white when the site itself invites white nationalists, not white supremacists. the_undertow ^talk 20:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

But in this case, only a fringe would consider them anything other than as we describe them, so we don't give undue weight to their opinions of themselves. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should avoid weasel words. I also think it is ridiculous to consider Stormfront white supremacist, but I think we need a few reliable sources that depict them otherwise to contend with all those which consider them white supremacist in order to maintain NPOV here. Skomorokh 00:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Stormfront.org, the online bulletin board whose booming growth delights white nationalists - here's a quote from this article which refers to Stormfront.org as it should be - a white nationalist website where racial slurs are verboten. the_undertow ^talk 01:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a half-dozen reliable sources (books) that characterize Stormfront as simply "white supremacist". This is the mainstream view of them. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing that. The problem is that it's not accurate, but the references do not reflect my thoughts. the_undertow ^talk 04:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Lima beans are usually thought to taste terrible... however, on the wikipedia article it does not say that lima beans "are a terrible tasting food". Thus, so long as there are legitimate views that dissent from the fact that Stormfront is White Supremacist, we must not make a final analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.237.249 (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt there are dozens of reliable sources that state Lima Beams "taste terrible". In any event, the article complies with WP:NPOV, describing the view of the vast majority of reliable sources, while still noting Stormfront's own claim. And I like Lima beans. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You didn't need to add 6 more sources - we have enough reliable sources, but thats cool. No one is questioning the sources. The problem is that Stormfront is for white nationalism, which is different from white supremacism, however the media is not generally interested in discerning between the two. It's not a site for white supremacists, although members are indeed of that variety. However, I can't go against the mainstream view, even if it is incorrect. It's frustrating, but hey, it's the site vs. the sources here. Wikipedia relies on sources and consensus, and they both point to the overwhelming idea that it is indeed a site for white supremacy. I have no problems here. the_undertow ^talk 05:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"Hate site"

Is a source written by someone called Brian Levin NPOV to label this website as a "hate site"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.239.245 (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Jooz, you mean? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Do you think it's NPOV to have a jewish person to label this website as a "hate site"? Could we try to have a bit less libelous description in its place? Now, I did have a quick look around this website and I did not come accross any racial insults of any kind. I believe the source of this supposed "hate" should be clarified with examples, if it indeed does exist. 88.112.239.245 (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Racial slurs are explicitly banned on the forum. I share anon's concerns that having content from clearly disingenuous or moronic sources as the above does not improve this article's quality. Skomorokh 17:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. [www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/posting-checklist-avoid-getting-your-324816.html This] pretty clearly details what they don't tolerate. Hate is one of those things. Lara❤Love 17:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

So we can say that they said that. The characterization is properly sourced, regardless of either our opinions or their own statements. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have is that if 50% of McDonald's clientèle become white supremacists, do we change the lead to the McDonald's article to read, "McDonald's is a white supremacist fast-food mogul..." These sources, although abundant, 'consider' SF to be a white supremacy site, but that really doesn't make it definitive. I think it's just a knee-jerk reaction to seeing 'white pride' and a celtic cross. the_undertow ^talk 22:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read their fora; if they don't tolerate hate, it's hate for a specific group of individuals that they don't tolerate (specifically, "whites"). Other groups, particularly Jews, are apparently exempt from that. In any event, it comes from a reliable source, even if our IP editor friend thinks he is a jooo. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added three more sources noting they are the first major hate site. Now, one of the sources has a name that sounds Jewish - obviously untrustworthy - but the other two have pretty "white" sounding names, so maybe they're reliable. Of course, you never know, the jooz are tricky like that, always trying to pass, and subvert from within. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha. I wonder if anyone questions Einstein's publications because of this. the_undertow ^talk 00:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. See, for example, christianparty.net/einstein.htm or www.litek.ws/k0nsl/detox/EinsteinMyth.html Jayjg ^(talk) 01:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This may be of some interest in this case. the_undertow ^talk 01:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that definitive? Should we change the lede to "The Stormfront White Nationalist Community is a white nationalist Internet forum founded in 1995. Widely considered a white supremacist website, Stormfont is the Internet's first major hate site, though it claims to be a forum for white nationalists."? Or "self-described white nationalist Internet forum"?Skomorokh 17:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is the accepted guideline. Your wording is suitable for me, especially if we add the citations after 'considered a white supremacist.' I like your first wording better. The MOS says we are to go with what they purport to be. It's the intent of the site, not the membership or make-up of that membership that we should be looking at. the_undertow ^talk 19:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed a change to the MOS. I object to the new wording. It is not jsut "widely considered." Those are weasel words. According to every reliable source in the article, it is. Only stormfront itself disputes this, and they certianly are not reliable. Yahel Guhan 00:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point; it's not about reliable sources, it's about self-identification. For example, take the Al-Qaeda article; the opening line says the group is "an international alliance of Sunni Islamic militant organizations", and the subsequent paragraphs of the lede detail who considers the group to be terrorists. Skomorokh 01:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yahel, you despise this article so much that you are going to propose a change to the manual of style? The MOS is based on consensus. And Skomorokh is right - you are missing the point. On many levels in fact. I don't propose changes to WP:CIVIL when I get pissed. Work with others, or leave. Stormfront, the source, is not reliable? But non-members are? This is going nowhere if you are going to propose policy changes everytime you hit a brick wall. the_undertow ^talk 03:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Do reliable sources describe it as "white nationalist"? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The WP:MOS guideline we are considering does not require them to; it self identifies as the Stormfront White Nationalist Community, which is good enough for the guideline. The only question is whether the MOS guideline is what we should be following in this case, given the circumstances. But RS's do describe it as a WN site; the Washington Post Jul 23, 2000 edition, Augusta Chronicle Nov 1, 1998 edition and the Denver Post Nov 8, 1999 edition to name but three. Many more note that it is self-identified as white nationalist, though they go on to call it nasty names. Skomorokh 01:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The WP:MOS guideline doesn't the trump WP:V and WP:UNDUE policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an argument that definitely has merit. I will start a discussion on the MOS talkpage if there is not already one. Skomorokh 01:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Good sirs, I don't think it's relevant who labels Stormfront a hate site. I think this hate should be sourced, and if it doesn't exist, the label should be reconsidered. Could one of our enlightened multiculturalists go look for this hate? As Stormfront is obviously a high-profile hate-site, this hate should not be too hard to find. 88.112.239.245 (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh polite and erudite observer, you unfortunately misunderstand Wikipedia's workings; we rely on secondary, not primary sources. So if the Jooish multiculturalist capitalist media says its a hate site, it's a hate site. Otherwise we would be arguing our own impressions, which would be an even more acrimonious debate. I tried to request input from the Great White Hope themselves [www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/stormfront-wikipedia-article-455867.html here], but no one bit. So until we find a reliable sources independent of the subject that says Stormfront is a beacon of light and charity, ice cream and apple pie, the description stays. Any further advice appreciated, though. Skomorokh 10:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see how it is. You apparently decide what hate is, even though you are unable to source said hate :-) Well, living in a dream world has its benefits, I presume... 88.112.239.245 (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid you don't; editors don't decide what hate is, newspapers, magazines, academic journals and so on do. We just parrot it mindlessly. The alternative is worse - if I were to say I did not think Stormfront was hateful, and you said you thought it was, we would have no way of objectively settling the matter. Secondary sources give us a mechanism for escaping such hopeless relativism. We can bemoan the standards of research of the secondary sources used in this article, but until someone comes along with secondary sources of superior quality and integrity, those are our best option. Have you got any sources that support your point of view? We would be more than happy to see them. Regards, Skomorokh 01:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My source is that SF bans hateful slurs and images. What's your source, except a few biased jewish "scholars" and one rabidly leftist anarchist? 88.112.239.245 (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please reference WP:BATSHIT_RACISM for clarification of the wording of this article.67.170.155.176 (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Changed the statement of fact - given the sentiment is strong, it's a clear POV push. I don't care whether the topic of the week is "We hate Jews", we can't call things bad. We can say they're called bad, but we must not make that assertion ourself (c.f. Al-Qaeda) Sceptre ^(talk) 23:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but since a dozen reliable sources describe them as "white supremacist", that's how we'll describe them too. Please don't ignore the sources, and make them say something they do not. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)