Talk:Stormfront (website)/Archive 4

Untitled
I almost forgot to add fascists to that list. 75.189.77.35 23:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)An American

Stormfronters, Nazis, and the like anywhere can suck Hitler's blue balls in hell. 75.189.77.35 23:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)An American

You people make me sick to death on 100 million dead thanks to communism, and yes this page is very very very biased is far as I am concerned it should be completely re written. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Is the statement "Stormfront states that it does not approve of the promotion of illegal activities under the United States law." referenced anywhere?Meok 07:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Why the fuck is this on Wikipedia?
You have a fascist racist irrational generally stupid site like this, but you don't have Che-Lives (http://www.che-lives.com) or Revolutionaryleft (http://revleft.com).

You people need to get your priorities straight.

Anyway, hope you enjoy your promotion of racist irrational hate. Fascists aren't welcome where I'm from, neither should they be here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.232.51.243 (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional or political site. It is here to provide information about notable topics. Stormfront is notable. If Che-Lives or Revolutionaryleft are notable, then they should have Wikipedia pages.  Acornwithwings 00:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I love when lefties praise che but yet call me a fascist. Che was brutal beyond measure even uncle castro couldnt take his blood baths anymore, get your head out of your ass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.59.106 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 12 April 2007


 * WOW, what rational! I suppose while were at it, we should delete the holocaust page. After all, we would'nt want to be promoting mass genocide, now would we? Dumbf**k, your makeing anti-racists look bad.

69.250.130.215 15:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Censorship is wrong. Wikipedia should discuss topics of interest. Stormfront is a topic of interest and thus should be discussed. The merits of any other person or movement are not relevant to the instant topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.193.243 (talk) 06:14, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Your criticism is invalid. This article has its place on Wikipedia not because the site promotes Neo-Fascism but because it is an encyclopedia. Bluntly, you sound like a hardcase communist who is simply bitter their extreme politics go relatively unsung. If you are so desperate for 'equal air time', try to make your precious sites worthy of Wikipedia's standards of significance. Machine Man 02:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC) ````We need to examine all social information. Fascism is central control, such as Leninism and the USSR. Lenin was a dictator and thus a fascist. We need to think clearly and examine all political and social groups from an honest perspective. Stormfront, while started by a man who advocated violence in that 1998 quote, and has a criminal record, also has many average people of the White race who are seeking to discuss racial issues, much as any Black pride, or Jewish dating only, site would do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nillyloveshistory (talk • contribs) 13:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Execuse me ? This makes no sense, Wikipedia is here to give information and guidance regarding certain topics, it doesn't advertise websites and if Revleft was as big and important as Stormfront it would have been added, no offense but we could make a billion of articles about all kind of forums on the net just to be fair. Btw, i read your revleft, its full of hate and irrational ideas, and i am not a nazi, i just support free speech.--84.94.51.1 17:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits removed
I made several small edits to more properly refect storm front in a neutral light, why where my edits removed, All my edits brought the page into a more neutral setting or updated there claimed member ship at this time, as that is what wikipedia is about "a neutral resource for information", I even spent some time viewing the site just to find out where the users stand on there views towards several subjects Rdouc 00:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Jayjg (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am reading them now, my edits are to bring the article with in the guide lines of NPOV Rdouc 00:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Finding nothing new in the links you suggested, my edit should stand unless you can give reason for each edit not to stand, I brought the page to a more NPOV state where as your edit does not please explain why you prefer my edits be removed, you also did not follow the procedure of explaining the reasoning to remove my edits so that I can see what your argument is Rdouc 00:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a simple example. Critics describe it as neo-Nazi; the don't describe "wrongly as neo-Nazi". Wikipedia doesn't decide whether the critics are right or wrong. Jayjg (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * thats true, thats why the caption is writen the way it is : wrongly described as "neo-nazi's" not " wrongly described as neo-nazi's " Rdouc 01:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * According to WP:NPOV, we just repeat what the sources say; we don't characterize them as "wrong". Jayjg (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll leave the 'wrongly ' out of the conversation for now then, what about my other changes that you have removed ? it seems to me that you are flat out tossing my edits out, still with out giving reasoning for most of them, you have an avg of 32 edits a day you should understand what I'm asking and why, But if your stead fast on removeing all my edits with out explaining why then thats not in line with the 'policys' as I read them,:I may not know how they come into play ( the policys ) yet, but I do know what they say ( basicly ), And you are not following them, I'm not trying to change the truth of the page so much as to bring it into line with the NPOV as I have said several times at this point, On another note are you going to answer this question or am I just an annoying 'newb ' to you who is not worth teaching ? you joined in 2003 and have nearly 47,000 edits, teach me so that I may learn Rdouc 01:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources describe it as a Neo-Nazi website, so it is included in that category. There is no "White Nationalist website" category, and even if there were, there aren't any reliable sources that describe it as a "White Nationalist website". Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The users of 'storm front' do not count as being a source for information ?? really now it seems that you have a non-objective view on the matter, also that does not answer why you removed all the edits, might I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting, Maybe you can help me understand what part of this you ARE following, So I may learn from you Rdouc 03:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are the diffrences in the article often wrongly describe : I added wrongly, the members of storm front claim to be White nationalists, not Nazi's, so they are wrongly being described and 'freedom of speech' : They also speak of freedom of speech so That should at the least be included, under United States law : They talk about repecting all laws of what ever country your in, not just the american laws, this should be removed to reflect that, assuming one user per account. : You are assuming that members have more then one account Rdouc 00:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, I see by your user page you have been here some time, and I would like to ask you to please explain why my changes are not exceptable to you, with out asking for out side assistance, All changes I have made are NPOV with no bias for/against Rdouc 01:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The category is not meant to be based on how members' describe their site, but rather, it draws from the description of reliable sources. El_C 05:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I can except that more so, but there are news papers refrenced as sources, they are Notoriously biased towards what ever there editor feels, as well as what ever will sell a paper, Thank you for educating me on that point, as i read it, as long as it is "writen" and not by the subject it self Rdouc 00:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as it is a verifiable claim written in a reliable source. Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems someone has to explain to Rdouc that the devotees of any given website are not considered neutral or reliable sources because they cannot be objective about it. FlaviaR 16:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this dispute can be resolved by changing the text from: "Many organizations describe it as a neo-Nazi organization" to "Many organizations describe it as a neo-Nazi organization, but Stormfront labels itself as a White Nationalist movement" (or something to that effect, since this exact change would lead to bad grammar). 209.173.84.93 (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC) no1uno

POV, sourcing
I've removed some things due to Biographies of living persons - I'm sure that these things can be sourced if you actually try, but until then, please stop adding them. I've also added a POV tag to the "extension of views" section. Yes, it may be obvious to most readers that the site is negative in tone and whatnot, but unless it can be sourced with a secondary source, you shouldn't be adding subjective judgments of the website. Has any secondary source ever published anything about the MLK site? Should it be here at all? --- RockMFR 02:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

SUPPORTS GENOCIDE
This website supports genoocide of "non white" races. I think this should be made clear on the article, because the article comes across as the site just "celebrating their heritage" when really, they wish the Jews and blacks were dead. All one has to do is look thru their posts.

See this post, for example. www.stormfront.org /forum/showpost.php?p=4162470&postcount=73

The article should reflect the real content of the site. Oh, and the fact its founders went to JAIL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.106.69.186 (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Though I agree that wikipedian tend to go too soft of stormfront as a hate site, the comment that you linked to is made by a regular forum member so it would make little sense to say that it offically support genocide. Perhaps a better exapmle would come from a admins comment, god knows they've said some sh*t.  69.250.130.215 20:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal
In my opinion this entire article should be removed. I know that Wikipedia is not going to do that so at the very least I suggest the removal of the link to the web site. We should not be helping people find this place. If we provide a link to the site and someone goes there and sees an article posted by someone to start killin and shooting then Wikipedia has helped this disgusting site spread hate, violate the law, and violate someone's human rights. I intend to remove the link unless someone can give me a really valid reason to have it that won't result in Wikipedia helping to distribute violence or hate speach.--Billiot 02:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia is not censored for one, and while I am against their views as much as almost anyone else here is, as I am african american, it makes no sense to remove the link. I pesonally think Stormfront's views are stupid, evil, and racist, but even so, they still have every right to express them. Freedom of speech is a right every man, woman, and child should be intitled to. We are not going to be able to stop people from viewing the website just by removing the link here. They could easily access it just by searching stormfront on google. It is the very first link . It is also on the first page of the google search "white supremacy" . I don't think we really have much effect on the traffic to this article. Just because their web content offends me is no reason to remove the link.--Sefringle 18:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand that Wikipedia isn`t censored but it also doesn`t allow links to pornography. If someone wants find the site then of caurse it would be very easy but they shouldn`t be getting there through Wikipedia.  A child that just happens to be reading random articles because he likes to learn might come across this page.  That little extra step of leaving Wikipedia and putting in the name of this site into a search engine is enough to filter out all the people that don`t really want to go to this site.  If Wikipedia makes it easy to get there by providing this link then many people who would have never gone there other wise will go just because it was easy.  At the very least we should put up a warning or some sort of disclaimer that the site doesn`t reflect the views of Wikipedia or its members.  We can`t really expect everyone who comes to this page to read the entire article before following a link at the bottom. Billiot
 * This website isn't pornography. It is a racist political website, and their motto White pride world wide makes that pretty clear. I think if we have their logo at the top of the page, there will be no doubt that they are a white supremist organization whose goal is to further racism. I don't follow your logic of "If Wikipedia makes it easy to get there by providing this link then many people who would have never gone there other wise will go just because it was easy." Of corse the views of Wikipedia is NPOV, and those of the editors varies. I think the best way to clarify that their views are not the views of wikipedia would be to add links to websites criticizing Stormfront. A disclamer that these views don't represent wikipedia would be very out of place, as no other controversial topic has one.--Sefringle 01:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If my understanding of Wikipedia is correct, there is no site that "reflects the views of Wikipedia" because Wikipedia has no views - it only has facts. Also, how can you say what the views of the members of Wikipedia are? Wikipedia is not an interest group, it is an online encyclopedia. if there are common views, ideals, or beliefs among a majority of members of Wikipedia, then it is because of a systematic bias in who decides to join Wikipedia, not because Wikipedia endorses or promotes any view, ideal, or belief. 209.173.84.93 (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)no1uno


 * Oppose. The main criteria for being on Wikipedia is notability, not desirability.  Yes, the world would be a better place if Stormfront and its ilk didn't exist.  But they do and since they are notable (I have seen them mentioned in at least 3 different documentaries), they should be covered in a NPOV way here.  Period.  FYI, the statement that Wikipedia "doesn't allow links to pornography" is untrue as there are many. I also object to the idea of a "warning or some sort of disclaimer that the site doesn't reflect the views of Wikipedia or its members".  One could say that for virtually every Internet link - for any given person, a majority of the political links probably do not reflect their views (and Wikipedia as such as no "members").  I recognize the argument (though you don't really make it) that any site mentioned on Wikipedia moves higher in Google results because of Wikipedia's high PageRank, but surely a neutral article that explains what Stormfront is and offers critical, balanced resources is not a bad thing.  Stormfront is also discussed on the Anti-Defamation League's pages (http://www.adl.org/poisoning_web/black.asp)  Anyone googling for "white power" or whatever will quickly come across the ADL, and from there learn about Stormfront.  Should the ADL stop discussing anti-semitic groups on the web? Absurd. Afabbro 04:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. For notability, stated above. Also: if you remove this information to prevent people from finding "hate" content, you also make it unavailable for people who want to know about it for other purposes, like research. In effect removing could make it harder for people to get neutral info. BTW: currently "White Nationalism" on Google returns this article as the first link, and the forum as the second. Slow Motion, Quick Thinking 02:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Forewarned is forearmed.FlaviaR 16:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think that everyone needs to know about insane, stupid racist organizations. --Heero Kirashami 22:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even a dissenting one. Wikipedia is not a liberal fascist propaganda machine. Koalorka (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Logo image
Apparently the previous image was deleted. If a fair use or free version is avaliable, maybe someone should download one.--Sefringle 02:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've uploaded a logo image, this time with a fair-use rationale. -- Grandpafootsoldier 01:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Infingment?
After a recent search, I found that Stormfront Studio (a gaming company) has been around since 1988 and Stormfront.org has only been online since 1995 (it started as a bulletinboard in 1990's). My question is, why have'nt stormfront studio sued stormfront website for copy right infirngment?
 * This is irrelevant to Wikipedia. If there was a lawsuit, that may be notable enough to appear in the article.  General discussion about why something hasn't happened is not an encyclopedia entry.  This is not a general place to discuss Stormfront - it's a place to discuss improving the article on them.  As a side note, you may be thinking of a trademark rather than a copyright; regardless, the same name can be used for two different organizations in two different unrelated fields of endeavor.  Afabbro 05:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever, a*shole

Stormfront Definition of White
I think this article should include Stormfront's own definition of who is White and who is not.

--Anonymous
 * If you can source it, you are more than welcome to add it.-- sef rin gle Talk 21:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's something although it might not qualify as official: www.stormfront.org /forum/showthread.php/super-white-358429.html

Slow Motion, Quick Thinking 02:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

STORMFRONT IS A METEOROLOGICAL TERM IDIOT IT CAN NOT BE COPYRIGHTED —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Remove "Neo-Nazism and Violence"
This section is unneccesarry, and has no content the writer can account for. There are no good arguments for having this section, and it will be removed unless someone can argumentate against that. Other then this, please stop reversing legit edits, such as removal of vandalism and removal of oppiniated statements by S.E. Atkins that are advertised as facts. I will keep rv'ing your edits if you do this. 85.82.195.131 13:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't you get an account? People will listen to you more if you do. That section has referenced material which is relevant to the article. As such, I will oppose any attempt to remove it in its entirety. The unreferenced stuff can go, just like any other unreferenced material. I ate jelly 14:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesnt matter if I have an account or not. My edits are legit, therefore you have to take me seriously, and if you dont, I'll simply keep reversing my legit edits until someone actually looks at them and argumentates for or against them. The Neonazi section does contain some amount of referenced material, but it doesnt conclude anything towards neo-nazism in connection with Stormfront. The only connection it established, was via the unreferenced oppiniated statements it was filled in with, such as labeling StormFront a neo-nazi forum by any standard. Therefore it should be deleted, and the legit content moved to another section with a relevant title. 85.82.195.131 16:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you don't have an account, people don't have to take you seriously. And if you keep reverting edits, then eventually you will be blocked, no matter if you think you are in the right or not. So anyway, why do you think that Stormfront isn't a neo nazi website? Have you actually been there...? -- I ate jelly -- 10:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As well, how is Koebenhavn anyway? I thought the city was a bit expensive when I was there last (the most expensive city in Europe apparently!)-- I ate jelly -- 10:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Copenhagen is a nice city, but I dont live there. And I dont care if you take me seriously. You just have to take my edits seriously. And no, I wont be blocked as long as I dont add vandalism. Why I dont think stormfront is a neonazi site? Because there is not sufficient evidence to support that. Yes, some members may be neo-nazi, its a free community which means anyone could write anything, does that make the whole community neo-nazi? No - the owners have stated that its a white nationalist forum, so why cant someone be a white nationalist without all these accusations? What about black, asian and native american nationalists? I dont feel that the accusations hold any content, and thats why you cant just interpret them as fact. 85.82.195.131 14:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "And no, I wont be blocked as long as I dont add vandalism."
 * Yes, you will. Check out WP:3RR. — ceejayoz talk  14:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Remove other sections

 * Personally, I don't think the article needs anything more then the introduction and controversies section. The history section is unsourced, the forums bit is irrelevant (and can be found simply be heading to the website) and there is no need for external links, as the webpage is give in the box at the top. Comments? I ate jelly 14:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll give it another day probably, and then I'll do the baove. -- I ate jelly -- 10:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm the guy previously known as 85.82.195.131, followed your advice anyway and made a user - I just removed those two sections because I, too, feel they are in lack of any verifiable or significant content. I suggest we make a new thread for discussing prospects of new sections or a make-over for this article, because obviously I dont like the Neo-nazi section either, and I think this whole article needs some re-arranging. Right now it only consists of a brief introduction with keywords such as hate and neo-nazism, and a whole section dedicated to hating it (controversies and critism). Now thats a one-sided POV. SenseOnes 19:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not really, if there is a number of people saying it is a neo-nazi site, then it should be featured here (specially since we have the sources). You see, wikipedia is not about writing that nice little article you want to write that says that Stormfront is a happy little community of people who just like to hate people but dont really mean it, its about collecting information (from a number of sources) and then writing that here in an optimal way. Is it a one-sided POV?, of course it is honey... but an EDUCATED one sided POV.

One sided?
I think that if this article is considered one sided, it is probably because there are no "positive" references that are neutral.

I actually don't really have a problem with the article as it stands. Nor would I have a problem if someone can find a neutral positive article to reference it. Anyway, -- I ate jelly -- 11:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this article only expresses the views of non white nationalists as neutral, that are principially against any kind of white nationalism, which is why they are not white nationalists. They label any kind of white nationalism neo-nazi, and this article considers that fact, which is obvious when you see the categorization of it (facism, racism, white supremacy, discrimination, etc). So why are the only "neutral" sources non white nationalists? They cant possibly be more neutral then white nationalists, because they are against white nationalism, which is why they are not white nationalists. Same with the "anti-hate" organizations etc, they are anything but neutral. The problem with this article is extreme anti white nationalist bias, with no respect of their POV, and with no serious coverage or respective representation of the white nationalist POV or stormfront user POV, or at least supporters POV. Only a constant way of debunking their views as racist, unintelligent, bad, evil, hate-filled, etc. This article is extremely biased, and extremely emotional. This is no way to make an encyclopedia article. SenseOnes 13:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can find some articles about Stormfront that describe it in positive terms, well then just show us here. But honestly, I don't give a shit if white nationalists are called NAZIs. Because frankly, I hate them both. White nationalism is a racist fucked up illogical, irrational idea just as much as any other racist idea. Just from looking at the introduction, it seems quite neutral. It doesn't label the website as anything but "white pride" and "white nationalist" (something that the website calls itself...). The rest of the introduction what critics call it, with references. The introduction is NPOV. The rest of it is criticism. And so long as each criticism is phrased in the third person with a reference, it is acceptable. Anyway, I still think that it is a fucked up website. -- I ate jelly -- 14:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well no doubt, I dont like the site either. Does that mean we should have a biased wikipedia? This is an increasing problem. I can easily find articles that are pro-stormfront or pro-white nationalism. I will make an update later. SenseOnes 20:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * good oh, if you can find articles that are pro-stormfront or white nationalism (and that are "neutral", if you know what I mean...), then feel free to add relevant information to the article. :) -- I ate jelly -- 11:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This entry is not neutral on this topic.

Here's the thing... Most people hate nazis. That is well known. The stormfront 'community' consists of a variety of people with a variety of views and political affiliations. The title of the page is 'stormfront white nationalist community' as you can see at www.stormfront.org /forum/ You can fish around for posts declaring it a 'nazi community' among the 4,175,318 posts currently there, but you could probably find a post declaring it a muslim community as well. There are most definitely nazis affiliated with the site, but there are nazis in the U.S.A. as well. Does that make the U.S.A. a nazi country? This is the same logic as declaring all black men are rapists because you have met one who is. Not exactly a neutral point of view. The difference between a 'white supremacist' and a 'white nationalist' is distinct. There is crossover but the terms are not equatable. Tellthetruthplease 04:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of those posts are actually opposing views (as they have a debate section). The difference between U.S. and their "community" is that their "community" is almost all neo-nazis. Most U.S. citizens (at least today), for the most part, are opposed to nazism, or at least they say they are (that said, racism still is a big problem, but I don't need to address that). The website was founded by an ex member of the Klu Klux Klan. What do you think that says about their views? It's not like he suddenly became an ex-racist. The dufference between white supremacy and white nationalism is not distinct; in fact, it is a very fine line, and in my opinion, both are racist views. I don't really see the difference, as their goals, and the reasons behind them, are pretty similar.-- Sef rin gle Talk 05:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact is, what you stated is an opinion. I'm not attacking your opinion, just stating it is an opinion. Now for my opinion, white supremacy and white nationalism are very distinctly different. Crossover between groups doesn't make two groups identical. Saying that most people involved in a website are nazis because the founder was formerly a member of the kkk is another opinion. In my opinion it is a horrendously and insultingly innaccurate opinion, but that's my opinion. The point is to recognize what are personal opinions and not let them convince you to interfere with an actual neutral entry on the subject. It's tough, I know, Especially if you feel the subject is close to yourself. But this way we can keep wikipedia as a great resource that can be relied upon, rather than a collection of a few peoples opinions telling us how we need to feel about something. Doesn't that make sense? Tellthetruthplease 22:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality.
Guys, labelling Stormfront a hate forum is merely the opinion of the person who wrote it and is not doing anything to give the article the neutrality it has been pointed out as lacking. Put personal opinions aside and re-write this page objectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * Agreed. Atari400 17:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you believe it is bias because it is not fact, or do you believe it is fact yet it's inclusion is still bias? The term hate used here, I believe would be correct. It matches the Compact Oxford English Dictionary definition here, http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/hate?view=uk, which is "...3 before a noun denoting hostile actions motivated by intense dislike or prejudice: a hate campaign." where hostile is "1 antagonistic; opposed....". Stormfront matches this definition as it does take opposed/antagonistic action, both in terms of being a forum for communicating ideas in itself and a forum via which to take outside action in opposition to other views, motivated by dislike or prejudice. A definition given by the hate wikipedia article, as of now, is as follows ""Hatred" is also used to describe feelings of prejudice, bigotry or condemnation (see shunning) against a class of people and members of that class. Racism is the most well-known example of this. The term hate crime is used to designate crimes committed out of hatred in this sense.". Do you believe the use of hate in this article would match that? As such I do believe stormfront being labelled a hate forum is a fact as it matches both those definitions. It is the use of the term hate which more recently and very commonly has become to be used to describe prejudice motivated action when prefacing a noun, such as hate crime, hate site or hate speech. This is effectively the same usage and the general reader would understand that. It does not necessarily mean hate as in intense dislike in this context. We should use the term hate here because it is important to distinguish early in the article that stormfront not just an ethnic or cultural pride websites.Meok 13:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think additionally it is labelled as a hate site or hate forum very often by many organisations and media, without much opposition. In that sense if we label it as a hate forum we are just using/representing overall public consensus. If almost everyone is labelling it as a hate forum it should be labelled as such here.
 * And in terms of actual hate against groups of people, as Sefringle below posts about, it does certainly exist. For example hateful posts against Jewshomosexuals or mixed couple (aka race traitors) are abundant. Such hateful posts are the norm not the exception, and pretty much are never disciplined or discouraged. Such posts are not discouraged by Don Black (owner/creator) either. So stormfront should be labelled as a hate forum. I mean if you had a forum full of computer related posts you would call it a computer forum wouldn't you?Meok 03:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of corse it is a hate forum. The website is prowdly opposed to blacks and Jews, and other groups. It obvously promotes hate against them. What more needs to be said. It is a hate forum.-- Sef rin gle Talk 03:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion of the site, and nothing more. Lets go ahead and leave the "weasel words" out of this aricle. Atari400 16:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You didn't counter or raise any points. You are just stating your position. Please discuss it if you wish to maintain your position.Meok 23:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why you think it is a weasel word, or just an opinion? Do you think it is a controversial or loaded statement to call Stormfront a hate forum? Do you disagree with the Oxford and wikipedia definitions of hate, or believe the application of the definition is correct?Meok 06:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is simply nothing of substance to counter. User "Sefringle" feels that Stormfront is a hate site. That may be the case, or simply the users own emotional reaction, but it has no reverence in the opening paragraph as a description of a website. Stormfront's views on "blacks and Jews", as it was put, is no more shocking or bigoted than many other websites on the internet, such as Little_Green_Footballs's attitude towards anyone labeled "Muslim". Yet, labeling Little Green Footballs as a "Hate Site" would not be appropriate, either. The article clearly shows that many view Stormfront as a "hate site", and that is fine for an encyclopedia article. By directly referring to Stormfront as a hate site in the opening sentence, as Sefringle does, this article risks falling into a legal grey area. Atari400 06:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there is any legal grey area here. Stormfront is routinely called a hate site by the vast majority of media which report it. That is not in itself an issue. But nonetheless does it fall in to the definition of a hate forum as following the Oxford and wikipedia hate article definitions? Does labelling Stormfront a hate forum match common usage of the phrase? I believe the answer is yes on both counts. Do you disagree? If it is a hate forum by definition and common usage then it should be called a hate forum here. I think those are the two main ways we should be looking at the labelling. Something like Little Green Footballs might fit into the first. Though a quick quick glance it appears to not be clearly prejudiced against a race or other group. It does have "Operation Soccer Chopper" giving balls to Muslim Afghanis posted for example on the front page. Rather it seems to be attacking in terms of politics and ideology rather than simply because someone is of a race or religion. So that is not hate of people nor does it fit the given definitions of Oxford or Wikipedia. Nor does it appear that it fits common usage of the phrase hate site. Sure there are some organisations that label it as such, but not to the extent of common usage. This is unlike Stormfront, which does often include and tolerate people hating posts and does match the Oxford definition, Wikipedia definition and common usage. By what measure would you call a forum a hate forum? Is it by dictionary definition or common usage or both or something else? I don't think being shocking comes into it.Meok 09:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Little Green Footballs is just as much a hate site as Stormfront, according to Wikipedia's own definition of a hate site: A hate site is a website that promotes hatred. Typically, such a site will contain criticism of a specific race, religion, sexual behavior, or nationality. A similar site to LGF would be Jihad_Watch. Since, by your reasoning these are not hate sites, why then should Stormfront be a hate site? Stormfront's discussion forum is no more spiteful of Muslims than LGF's or Jihadwatch's forums. The only difference is that they also hate people of Arican origin, as well as people who are Jewish. Are you actually insinuating that it is not okay to hate people who Black or Jewish, but it is okay to hate someone who is of a Muslim background? Are you saying that a person who is/looks Muslim(Middle Eastern and South Asian), who is the victim of a hate crime, is really only experiencing a form of political opinion? Your argument seems a little flawed, to me. Atari400 18:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The definition I was using from the hate article was ""Hatred" is also used to describe feelings of prejudice, bigotry or condemnation (see shunning) against a class of people and members of that class." I don't believe LGF is promoting hatred against a group of people. It is against an ideology and fundamentalism. Jihad watch may arguably be a hate site. But their focus appears to be on fundamentalism rather than attacking actual muslim people. This is a very important difference. This is why someone like Richard Dawkins is not a hate activist. He may hate all religion but he does not necessarily hate all religious people themselves. So in that sense LGF or JihadWatch do not hate people as much as they hate a particular way of thinking primarily fundamentalism. Though that is just a quick look. Stormfront routinely displays opinions that it is racialist, rather than just an attack on a philosophy, ideology or religion. They don't just attack Jewish beliefs, they attack Jews. They don't just attack Arab culture or beliefs, rather they attack Arabs themselves. And so on. Do you understand the distinction I am raising? Do you believe there is a distinction?
 * On the other hand the hate site article says "A hate site is a website that promotes hatred. Typically, such a site will contain criticism of a specific race, religion, sexual behavior, or nationality." I think we have to assume hate has to be limited, and is used ambiguously here. Hating apples would not for example match a hate site. The following sentence, "Typically, such a site ..." is not in itself a definition. It is a description of what is commonly contained, in the same sense that typically hate sites will include contact details of the sites owner, or stools will typically have 3 legs. There is a difference between a definition and a description. As such something can be hate site despite not having such criticism (it might be demonising and calling to attack people according to political position). And something might not be a hate site despite despite having such criticism of religion (per the description) such as the Richard Dawkins example. The definition section below in the same article states "A popular argument which attempts to define such things as vulgarity and pornography is "I know it when I see it," which can be equated to the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene.". In this sense it is suggesting common usage of an average person to define hate sites (similar to the test for obscenity). Stormfront certainly matches this definition. LGF and Jihadwatch may match this for some people but not as universally as stormfront, as far as I know. But that is arguable. If you feel it matches please raise that issue in their talk pages.
 * So overall Stormfront is matching the Hate article definition and the hate site article definition. LGF and Jihadwatch I do not believe match either for the reasons given. However I have not read or read about LGF or Jihadwatch to any big extent. If you feel the definitions we are using are correct (Oxford dictionary, and hate and hate site on wikipedia), and do match LGF or Jihadwatch it would be a good idea to raise that on their talk page. Do you think the definitions are the right one? If not what definition would you use certainly? Do you think Stormfront matches the definitions? If not what site does match the definition?Meok 23:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me like you are basing your defintion of "hate site" on both original research, as well as personal opinion. That is a violation of the Wikipedia policy. You "feel" Stormfront is a hate site, but you "feel" LGF is not. None of what you "feel" belongs in this article. Atari400 14:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It sounds to me like Meok just owned Atari 167.102.227.65 19:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Applying a definition, any definition ourselves is a use of our opinion. Calling an apple an apple without a reference is an opinion. However wikipedia does have allowance for things to go unreferenced because doing otherwise is pedantic. For example with a good, referenced definition of a square, I should be able to call items which match the definition a square. Asking for a reference or calling that a opinion let alone a "feeling" is digging the barrel. Now if you think the definitions are wrong or the application is not apparent please show where you think I have gone off. Otherwise I don't believe such comments help. I mean there is more than one definition up there. What exactly is the issue?Meok 23:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The PROBOLEM is you are all basing your discussion on your oppinions. "Of course stormfront is a hate forum!", "they match the definition of hate" etc etc. The fact is anyone can write anything, that means anyone can hate anyone on the forum. Does that mean everyone subscribe to that hate? No. Another fact is, a lot of people critizise African-American culture on stormfront. Does this make it a hate forum? No. Its a white nationalism community, that doesnt mean its a hate community. Its your oppinions. This article is based entirely on BIAS and various anti-racism movements and THEIR oppinions. So stop it. SenseOnes 12:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Atari400 15:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well in order to label something, we must understand a definition and apply that. I have given various definitions which can apply which are not of my own opinion/creation. Then it becomes a matter of applying that definition. Do you believe the definition or the application to be wrong or incorrect? Do you think that we can not apply the definition ourselves as that in itself would be putting our opinion? As both Atari and I have attempted to apply a definition we would both be "guilty" of that charge. In fact, by that line, anyone applying a given definition, dictionary or overwise, would be giving their opinion. In that case we would have to use common usage. Do you agree or disagree? In the case of common usage Stormfront would be put as a hate forum. Or do you rather think we should be using a classification from authoritive resources on hate sites? Care to use an authoritive hate site resources.
 * Though I do have a feeling you have not read my post. Simply hating a criticizing a culture is not enough using the wikipedia definitions. Hating a group of people is required. Comments such as "The Israel state can not be trusted" does not constitute a hate site while comments on Stormfront such as "A good Jew is a dead Jew" do. So if we are applying the definitions this distinction is important. But nonetheless what do you think makes a hate site. What measure does a site have to meet for it to be a hate site? Strict definition? Common usage? Authority? Other? Please elaborate on this. Please also note that you can not hate anyone on the stormfront forum, as you have stated. I quote a guideline written by the owner "No attacks against other White nationalities.". This matches the moderation of the boards. Just letting you know.Meok 15:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed your argument as to why Stormfront is a hate site, and sites such as Little Green Footballs and Robert Spencer's Jihadwatch are not(perhaps Michelle Malkin's "hot air" should be added). I must say that I am rather confused, as I see both as discussion based hates sites, with difference only in degree. I was wondering if you could elaborate on your position, as one promotes hatred of Africans, Jews, Arabs, Muslims, Asians, Latinos, Homosexuals, Catholics, and migrant workers...While the other just promotes hatred of Arabs and Muslims, with a growing tendency towards Latinos and migrant workers, with perhaps a potential for Homosexuals and Asians. In both cases, all of which take place in the discussion forum. How exactly is there a major difference? How can one possibly be hate, while the other is just healthy opinion? Both sites host posts in the discussion forum that regularly call for mass genocide of the targets of their irrational hatred. Even though this cannot be worked into the article, I am curious as to your justification? Padishah5000 07:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In terms of LGF and Jihadwatch you may be right to call them a hate site. The comments I made on them is just from a glance of the site not the forums. They appeared to attack an ideology rather than a group of people themselves. That is a difference in type. For example as of now the LGF have posts mainly about crime and politics, around violence (such as the APEC protesters and Pipe bomb makers) and censorship. Not to far back they had post about giving balls to Afghani kids. This is different then hatting all Afghanis and Muslims indiscriminately, which is closer to Stormfront. Attacking such issues of fundamentalism, violence, censorship in itself is not a hate site. But of course perhaps if you are more knowledgeable of those sites perhaps your conclusion would be different. You would have to ask does the labelling match the definition, uncontroversial (outside of talk pages) and does it match common usage. The first would require a referenced definition and your own application. The last two would require references to possibly various organisation and media reports. If it matches those criteria then you should be labelling LGF and Jihad watch a hate site. You wouldn't have any justification not to.Meok 00:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is actively disencoruaged to hate on white nationalities on a white nationalist, or pro-white forum. If not, it wouldnt be a white nationalist forum, or at least a pointless one. Lets agree about this: Stormfront is a pro-white/white-nationalist forum. It is _not_ anti-white, its quite the opposite. So when hate speech towards other cultures is posted, and not moderated, does that express the oppinion of the moderators (that again are free individuals), or the site? No, it means lack or absence of an active stand on the subject. It is pro-white, that doesnt mean it is pro-black nor anti-black, vice versa with jewish. About the definition of a hate site - if a site had the name "JewsDeserveToDie.com", and the page had a black background, and red text on the front page, uploaded by the owner, saying "JEWS ARE F*CKING FAGGOTS AND I HATE THEM ALL, CROOKED NOSED LIARS! DIE JEWS! STUPID JEWS!", and then nothing more, we would presumably all agree that it matches the definition and characteristics of a hate site. Why? - its only purpose is hating these jews, and the owner is the only one taking the active stand of hating the jews. When a site has an interactive, dynamic community with lots of different subjects being (to some degree) freely discussed, it adds several extra dimensions. Such as the many different people and oppinions at play, the freedom of expression, the several non-hatred-based purposes, the difference in oppinions and the diversification away from JUST the owners designated oppinion, at least to some degree. All in all, it adds up to Stormfront having many purposes and users and many different oppinions from many different white nationalists, and therefore NOT being a one-sided hate site. SenseOnes 22:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Now I assume you are trying to apply a definition or guidelines in order to label Stormfront, rather than take common usage. I'll take your line then. Now of course Stormfront has various topics. However it consistently contains attacks on groups of people, to the extent it is the rule not the exception. And it extremely rarely contains post by confirmed members disagreeing with such attacks. Having a different opinion is not the norm and can get you removed. Some varied topics and posts about which calibre to use for home defence or dating white women for example does not take away from that. Particularly when those topics themselves often include attacks on groups of people. In that sense the forum would be called a hate site in the same way as a forum containing politically conservative posts as the norm/rule (whether or not the owner dictates so) can be described as a conservative forum. What the owner says is less important then what the forum is. Of course if you get to the front page you do see advertisements for lectures or radio events, which sometimes do also contain attacks against a group of people. However as you said, this post and yours above can be seen as opinion, as we are applying a definition. In fact it coming close to original research I think, as we are starting to analyse the forums ourselves. Don't you agree? In that sense if we can not come to an agreement then we should use an authority on hate sites.59.167.244.67 00:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The FACT is, the stormfront forum is NOT a hate site. It is a PRIDE forum. Definitely many of the users on the forum are full of hate, I won't dispute that. However, the SITE is devoted to PRIDE, not HATE, and MANY other users express that PRIDE without any HATE. As I said, you can categorize every person in a demographic based on the actions of individuals if you really need to, but that is a BIAS, the same sort of BIAS that will lead someone to declare all black people to be television thieves if one black person steals their television. Doesn't this make any sense? Really? Tellthetruthplease 02:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a pride forum, or if it is, it is pride in hate for blacks and jews. I haven't found any view on that site that says they are prowd of what white people have done; it is all about hatrid of blacks, jews, and other; how they don't want to live in the same areas as blacks and jews, how they want to get rid of blacks and jews, etc. It is a hate site for blacks and jews, and the website content makes that pretty clear. Not to mention reliable expert sources have called it a hate site. Either way, we are turning this tlak page into a forum.-- Sef rin gle Talk 05:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Even though I personally detest such a website, and feel that it is a hate site, I am in no position to label it as such, and neither is any other editor on Wikipedia. To do so would only be an unprofessional emotional reaction to it, as well as original research of sorts. I believe that the article fairly addresses the issue of its accusations as a hate site, and there is no place for a direct labeling of such in the opening sentence. Oh, and on a side note, the discussion forum has entire threads dedicated to more than just hatred of Africans and Jewish people(though both are a major theme), but also Asians, Arabs, Muslims, Latinos, Native Americans, Catholics, illegal immigrants, Slavic peoples(Russians), people with brown skin, and pretty much anyone not seen as being both physically and culturally "white". That is just my own observations, and as such, I cannot put that into the article. In many ways, it is no worse than many of the right-wing blogs on the internet in some regards(and perhaps even "AM hate radio"), many of which are mainstream at this point in history. Padishah5000 06:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a different between a primarily pride site and stormfront. A board such as greek connection for example might be a pride forum, where primarily it contains topics about Greece and almost if not nothing about hate. Stormfront is distinct. If you have pride for a heritage or culture it is not as much of a prerequisite as a hostile racialist attitude. Members are primarily selected by administrators in terms of a hatred orientated positions. If one were to be proud for example of Italian heritage and culture, yet thought the incessant Jewish, Homosexual, or Arab hatred should stop, you won't be allowed to be a member for long if at all. That is the distinction there. It is not just pride on the forum. Rather the forum is for a large part about hostile racialist ideas. And you need to be following the philosophy to be a member. So in that sense it is not just the regular members but the administrators who have hate. The philosophy is administered. And thus almost all registered regular members must have shown it at one time or another to gain acceptance.
 * And even without such administrators we can call stormfront a hate forum. As I said if the forum is predominately filled with hateful posts it is a hate forum. It doesn't mean every single poster is hateful (as implied by your analogy). It just means we are describing the forum as a whole. It is a generalisation in the same way as calling an apple red. Sure not every single part of the apple is red (such as the stalk), but overall it is red.Meok 05:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it is a direct accusational generalization and labeling that is open to interpretation and debate, and as such, is outside the scope of the purpose of an encylopedia article. The article cleary states that "Stormfront" has been accused by many organizations as being a hate site, and that unto itself fulfills the purpose of this article. To go beyond that falls into the realm of editor opinion. Padishah5000 06:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Generalistion and labelling to a degree is fine in an encyclopaedia. Not only do we generalise about apple colours, we also generalise about forums and organisations too. Young Americans for Freedom is called conservative, but I doubt every single post is conservative. Prince is called a musician, yet he is not just a musician. The Republican Party of USA is described as pro-business despite not every single one of it's actions or statements being pro-business. These are all generalisations. If the generalisation fits for near all cases then it should be used. We still call a red apple red right? This is very much true for Stormfront due to it membership selection and opposing views section (i.e. views opposing Stormfront members' own).Meok 00:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Stormfront doesnt hate catholics, slavic people or "latinos". In fact, "latinos" is a word for people with latin roots, which means French, Italian or Spanish heritage, and those are all core european white nationalities. There are entire SECTIONS for spaniards and the french on stormfront. The spanish/french/italian and the slavic are widely recognized as WHITE, the only thing stormfront doesnt share with the US race definitions is that they donot regard most arabs white. And stormfront is very christian/catholic, so how could it hate that relligion. And this is all off topic, but one thing I know - "sefringle" is obviously basing his POV in this discussion as being a AFRICAN-AMERICAN JEW, (yeah, a black AND a jew, and even an african-american), so he obviously feels he is being targeted by this website. That is a trend on wikipedia - people defending their own culture by biasing articles. Stop this. SenseOnes 22:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Section break

 * Okay, then I stand corrected. It is just Jews, Blacks, Arabs and Middle Easterners, Muslims, Asians, Homosexuals, and people at least partly or fully indigenous to the Americas? Would that be more accurate, then? Padishah5000 01:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it would. SenseOnes 13:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank God! I was getting worried there for a second! Padishah5000 17:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But you have to remember, this is in fact irrelevant. Because individual users may post hate messages aimed at any ethnic or social group - this does not neccesarily represent stormfronts general message or oppinion. You have to remember stormfront has thousands of members from people from many different countries, with diverse oppinions. SenseOnes 08:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, the rationale for calling this site a "hate site" seems very similar to that recently used by Bill O'Reilly when he attacked the Daily Kos as being a "hate site" (i.e. the opinions expressed by some individuals on a site's forums speak for the entire site as a whole). I find this amusingly ironic. -- Grandpafootsoldier 07:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You are actually going to compare a white supremist neo-nazi website to a policical blog? Just read their logo if you think it isn't a hate site ("white pride world wide"). It is so obvous that it is a hate site-- Sef rin gle Talk 03:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In this day and age, the difference between many political blogs and hate sites is rather murky at best. Padi 04:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think it is quite clear in most cases what the difference is. Besides, there is no way stormfront is a "political blog" (unless we are talking neo-nazi politics)-- Sef rin gle Talk 22:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps your personal views of "clarity" may be rather opinionated and biased by your own personal feelings. In reality, there is nothing clear about what the difference is, and where the fine line may lay. I would suggest that for the sake of this article, that you would recuse yourself from this discussion. Stormfront.com has been accused of being a "hate site", and rightfully so. Many other right-wing blogs have been accused of this as well, a good deal of which are considered mainstream in audience readership, and even wrongfully sited as academic references on Wikipeida.. This is all a question of a level of degree, and gaging public reaction. Unless of course, you think that promoting hatred, fear and even violence towards Arabs/Muslims, Latinos, Asians and Homosexuals is rationally acceptable? Padi 00:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, I never said hate violence is acceptable. Quite irrelevant anyway. Right wing blogs and neo-nazi sites like stormfront are, however quite different. Right wing or conservative blogs, for the most part are political, expressing conservative views, and are not nearly as extremist as the views of nazis. There are several exceptions, but if they are not actively persuing hatrid of particular group(s), so they are not technically racist. I think you don't understand the difference between conservative views and those views of the ultra far right, many of which conservatives reject. This is not a defense of conservatism; as there are many things wrong with some parts of the conservative stance, but in general conservatives are not fascists or neo-nazis.-- Sef rin gle Talk 00:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I for the most part agree with you, as I have stated that Stormfront is a hate site, and has been fairly criticized as such, and the article should reflect those various opinions loudly. I am sure I will be accused of being "subjective" for saying such. Personally, if I am ever in the need to raise my blood pressure too unhealthy levels, all I need to do is read through that websites discussion forum, but that is another matter altogether.
 * I am not accusing Bill O'Reilly of running a hate site either, at least at this time I see nothing to accurately source such a statement(as opposed to Stormfront.com). I am also not accusing the majority of conservative blogs of being "hate sites" in any sense of the word(I actually read several myself, and find nothing hateful about them to my eye). I am saying though, that in the realm of the right, especially in the arena of the blogosphere, there is an ample amount of examples that have clearly crossed the line into open hatred and bigotry, and that it is actually not uncommon to see such sources cited as references on Wikipedia. Many of these sites, which are easily identified, rather openly exhibit very anti-Latino, anti-immigrant(legal or otherwise), anti-Arab/Muslim(in their eyes, they are one and the same), anti-homosexual, and even a good degree of the old-fashioned fear of the "yellow scourge", i.e anti-Asian. I am not saying the Stormfront is somehow "better", as their obsessive hatred of those before mentioned groups is only surpassed the the average posters hatred of all things "Jewish" and "African", or whatever unruly usage they use to describe those folks. What I am saying is that that the line in hardly set in stone as a definition, and one must be careful in seeing and understanding it's existence. After all, it can be very subjective in nature, regardless of how objective time's backsight may make it appear.
 * As far as I am concerned, I see any website that would insinuate a question relating to any person's own basic humanity as being a stipulation and function of ancestry, ethnicity, religion and culture as a hate site. This view is largely backed up by most definitions of the terms "bigotry" and "racism" in relation to speech. Many of the "right wing" sources articled and cited on Wikipedia clearly violate this simple understanding, and though they may defend themselves as be simply "conservative" and "critical" in nature, they are hardly more than a stones through from being a "Stormfront" themselves". After all, a sweeping generalization is a sweeping generalization, not matter how one tries to sugar coat it. Could anyone actually state that the speeches of Ann Coulter do not contain ample amounts of "hate speech", but rather are simple examples of conservative thought? Does referring to John Edwards as a "faggot" and Muslims as "ragheads" reflect critical thought and criticism? I would hope not. Padi 08:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It is so highly disturbing for me to see how an individual like sefringle lets his emotions bias his views. I know your a self-defined jew and feel targeted. But you are labeling an entire user community neo-nazi based on nothing but prejudice, and if it wasnt for people like me and others this article would say "neo-nazi, racist white devil site". Your kind should be banned from wikipedia because you impose a threat to the neutrality of any slightly controversial articles like this one. SenseOnes 00:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing but prejudice! We are talking about a white supremacist neo-nazi hate website here, and you are going to say I'm prejudice for pointing that out and that I should be banned for saying so! Wow. Have you even read the material on that website or their stated goals? How the most prominant users of the forum all say Hitler should be praised, and you are going to tell me I'm prejudice for calling such people neo-nazis! Nonsense.-- Sef rin gle Talk 01:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See. "We are talking about a white supremacist neo-nazi hate site".. You are totally emotional, and you put so many false labels on the site. Correction: its a white nationalist community. First of all nazi is a slang word for the kind of national-socialism Adolf Hitler advocated. Second of all, praising Adolf Hitler, expressing interest in him, etc is not being a definitive neo-nazi. And when we're talking a whole community, it IS prejudice to say they are just a bunch of neo-nazis. Some are, some are not. A fact is, they are white nationalists, and thats what you cant take, so you call them all neo-nazis and white supremacists. There is difference. I dont see how your own zionist ideas are better then white nationalism. In fact, white nationalists and zionists are in the same category for me, both are nationalist and in my oppinion racist ideologies. Instead of critizing these white folk maybe you should just take a look at yourself. SenseOnes 01:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I am not emotional, I am saying the truth. This is a hate site. You can call it white nationalism, white suprematism, white pride, or anything else. It is all the same, in that it is all the same racist dogma designed to say white people are dominant to black people. It is not prejudice to call a community whose purpose is hate and racial dominance a hate community, and that is exactly what this "community" called stormfront is. Comparing zionism to white nationalism is just rediculous. Zionism is about a homeland for the jews; it is not about establishing jewish dominance. White nationalism, on the other hand, is about racial dominance, removing all non prue whites from white areas. No comparision- just racism.-- Sef rin gle Talk 01:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we are getting into "semantics" here, and I usually would not interject myself into such a boring discuss as this(I mostly edit/write Military related articles on Wikipedia, as well as those dealing with physics, where my professional education is centered, using a different account). Everything is a level of degree. For instance, your history on Wikipedia clearly shows a genuine passion and interest in protecting and cultivating certain aspects of the many articles related to both Judaism and the Jewish experience, as well as Africa, Africans and African Americans. That is very noble thing to do, and beneficial to all of us as a community. Yet, that is clearly counter-balanced by your very negative bias towards anything Arabic/Islamic/Iranian/Middle Eastern/etc, that attempts to cover up your own prejudicial leanings under the guise of "criticism". Now, you clearly feel that Stormfront is a hate site, and yet reject the same notion when such views held by other forums is directed at groups not aligned to your own personal feelings? That seems like a rather hypocritical approach to me, if not one that is potentially shameful in its outcome. Rejecting one sweeping generalization in favor of another is hardly a means towards finding academic balance, regardless of whether it deals with such ideologies as "White Nationalism" or "Zionism" or "Baathism" or "Islamism" or "Communism"(I have seen it argued that all are two sides of the same idealogical coin, i.e "imperialism"...Finkelstein or Chomsky?) After all, and perhaps unfortunately, Wikipedia articles are increasingly being used by both the media and the young as a means of quick information retrieval on many subjects, and this can potentially have ill effects in the real world. Padi 07:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree to the above post. While it is generally disencouraged to comment on editors, it is sometimes neccesarry. One thing I can assure you is that Sefringle will not be allowed to influence this article with the zionist bias he desires, even if he's a big Jewish-related contributor. No matter how controversial the article is, we have to remain neutral, non-emotional and express only the truth. This article is already biased but at least it doesnt describe the views of the media as the truth, but uses expressions such as "stormfront has been described as.." etc. Good luck to all other editors with keeping the article bias free. SenseOnes 14:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Padi 19:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do I get the feeling Padishah/Padi is a sock puppet? Lawofone 13:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
Padishah5000, you restored original research without providing a source, and removed the sources I added. What is your explanation for this?-- Sef rin gle Talk 03:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

IMHO if we aren't on top of this, the goyim are going to twist it so that Stormfront is a big love site. We need to make sure the project keeps these anti-semites in the proper light. Holocaust denial is not acceptable and we have enough of us on here ot make sure our point wins. Has anyone reported this to Slimvirgin? 68.7.66.56 06:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"We need to make sure the project keeps these anti-semites in the proper light", thats your oppinion, this is not wiki-you, its wikipedia and the whole point is neutrality. "Holocaust denial is not acceptable" - again, this is your irrelevant oppinion, who even says all stormfront members are in denial of holocaust. You have totally misunderstood the point of wikipedia, like has Sefringle. You're so focused on semites and some stormfront members alleged oppinions about them, so now you're gonna call the zionist army so they can tear the neutrality apart or what? SenseOnes 08:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, some very disruptive editing going on, twice now, at least, I've seen the link An Insider's View of the Decline of Stormfront removed, despite the fact it is exactly the sort of link that should be carried, it has unique information, not sourced anywhere else, verifiable facts, and the source meets the requirements of wikipedia for reliable sources, in that many of the authors are members, and employees, of Stormfront, past and present, with a unique insight into the workings of the site. It's clear the disruptive editor hasn't taken the time to read the piece. What is a reliable source? "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" can there be anyone more authoritative on the inner workings of a website than employees past and present? "Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves" again, this link fits with that criteria. There is no justifiable reason why the disruptive editing is taking place, except for the sole purpose of disrupting. Wikipedia has been described as "an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language". For those that don't know what an encyclopedia is, an encyclopedia is "A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically." Note the use of the word comprehensive, "An examination or series of examinations covering the entire field of major study", the "entire field", the total, the sum of, the complete picture, and yet we are to understand that a link to a very important part of the picture, as written by an authoritative source, namely employees, and former employees, in keeping with wikipedias policies, is to be repeatedly removed by someone who hasn't even had the decency to read the content of the link that they are constantly removing with their disruptive defacing of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.63.23 (talk • contribs)


 * Bulletin-board posts don't come close to meeting WP:RS. Apart from the fact that there is no way to verify who the authors are in order to establish whether they are "regarded as trustworthy(!) or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" [exclamation point mine], both authors and site are no doubt covered by WP:RS.  --Rrburke(talk) 12:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A bulletin-board is not a source, it is merely a medium for publishing information, intellectual snobbery aside, there is no reason why one medium should be favored over an other, the prime concern of an article must be information, and quality of information, in whatever medium it is presented. Are we truely to believe that an article printed in a newspaper is automatically, by virtue of it appearing in a news paper, of a higher standard that information written on the back of an envelope, for example? The whole comment about bulletin boards is ridiculous in the extreme, and the authors are verified, both in their claims, and in posts made on Stormfront. So your argument doesn't even begin to stand up A perfect example of where such a link is allowed elsewhere on Wikipedia now, perhaps instead of further silly comments we can return the link in keeping with wikipedia policies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.63.23 (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore a bulletin-board is already used as an undisputed source in the article, so that argument holds even less water, when we look at the article as is. Perhaps this is an example of a situation where we need less talk, and less edits, and a few people doing a little more research on the issue instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.63.23 (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Here you go Rrburke, in answer to your silly comment that "there is no way to verify who the authors are", 6 minutes of research later http://upload.whitenationalist.info/sfradio/CONTENTWARNING.mp3 http://upload.whitenationalist.info/sfradio/STORMCROWS1.mp3 http://upload.whitenationalist.info/sfradio/STORMCROWS2.mp3 http://upload.whitenationalist.info/sfradio/STORMCROWS3.mp3 http://upload.whitenationalist.info/sfradio/STORMCROWS4.mp3 http://upload.whitenationalist.info/sfradio/STORMCROWS5.mp3 http://upload.whitenationalist.info/sfradio/STORMCROWS6.mp3 we have it audibly verified by the Stormfront cheif of staff, in a radio broadcast, as archived in the linked article. Had you taken as much time to read the article, as you did in writing your erroneous comment then you too may have been aware of that fact, and saved us both a deal of time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.63.23 (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're evidently very industrious, but it'll all be for nought, I'm afraid. Links to audio files from http://upload.whitenationalist.info will not be accepted by editors as reliable sources -- nor, really, will anything from the domain whitenationalist.info.  You cannot use one unreliable source to confirm the reliability of another unreliable source.


 * Bulletin boards never meet WP:RS: any person could post to such a forum and then cite their posts on Wikipedia articles, which would allow them to post their own original research. As well, WP:RS itself is not a policy, but a guideline about how to meet the requirements of WP:Verifiability, which is a core policy.  The subhead on sources in WP:V reads in part, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  A bulletin board at Whitenationalist.info fails.  The sub-subhead "Questionable sources" reads, "questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight."  A chat board at Whitenationist.info succeeds admirably in meeting that criterion, and so citations from this board -- or, really, any -- fail WP:V.


 * If you're still concerned about this, consider taking the matter to Requests for comment, where forty other editors can tell you why it's not coming in. If you genuinely believe the removal of this material is disruptive, you may consider posting to WP:AN/I. I would advise against it, unless you wanted another forty editors to tell you again why it's not coming in and to ask why you've made such a frivolous report.


 * Your tip about there being a cite sourced from a bulletin board is welcome, as it will allow the citation to be removed once the article is unprotected. --Rrburke(talk) 15:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to remind a few people here, at this point, that one of the key elements of wikipedia, one of the few things that is demanded of people, is Verifiability, and for those that don't understand that word, Verifiable means confirming or substantiating an item. The term refers to the ability of accountants to ensure that accounting information is what it purports to be. The term also means that the selected method of measurement has been used without error or bias.

It is impossible to verify something without first examining it, or investigating it, considering we have seen that these edits have been made on just that basis they immediately contradict the most important rule of wikipedia. Edits must NEVER be made on the basis of hunches, or supposition.

As was pointed out to Rrburke, in the post that he deleted from this discussion page, in a rather rude attack on me, it was clear from his own statements, that he had not taken the time to investigate, or research that which he was passing comment on, and therefore his assumptions were very much misplaced, and inaccurate.

We've established that the link, that was wrongly removed, has in fact been verified as an authentic, and valid source, and therefore the matter has been dealt with, although I now see that the discussion page is also being disrupted, which is a further cause for concern.

The remarks made by Rrburke, in his last post, are redundant, and have already been dealt with, in previous posts, and posts deleted from this page, as he would have known, had he taken the time to read them.

Having demonstrated he hasn't read the article under review, listened to the linked broadcasts, or even read my posts on this page, and therefore shown no willingness to research, he has shown he is merely here to create disruption.

The link will be added back, when the page is unlocked, unless a valid objection can be raised (valid meaning a genuine objection, not already addressed in this page, brought by someone who has taken the time to research, and review the situation, rather than someone who wishes to edit based on guesses and assumptions, without reading, or listening to anything said). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.108.35 (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Verifiability doesn't mean anything of the kind. Verifiable has a precise and limited meaning on Wikipedia, and it's this:


 * "'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."


 * The link will not be re-added when the page is unprotected, and if it is it will be removed because it fails WP:V in not being drawn from a reliable, published source. A reliable source is a "third-party published source[] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  If members of Stormfront were, for example,  quoted in a newspaper article on the topic, it would be possible to include such material in the article. But no self-authored bulletin board post from any extremist website is ever going to qualify as a reliable source, so no material which cites such a source as the basis for its inclusion is going to remain in the article.


 * As I said previously, if you disagree, you have open to you a variety of dispute-resolution options open to you, including taking the matter to Requests for comment. --Rrburke(talk) 14:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hah!
This article is one of the most disgustingly biased in existence on wikipedia. And what's worse is it's allowed to be. A complete re-write is in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.98.144 (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is not really biased in it's current shape. It is very small and has been reduced to almost nothing. There aren't any neutrual sources to use. The article should simply present biased sources in an accurate light. This means mentioning it's history, role and status in the WN movement, and how anti racists have responded.Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep —Preceding comment was added at 21:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral = Pro + Con
Okay, some topics defy neutrality. So, Wikipedia should have two sections - one for the nay-sayers and one for the yea-sayers. This would solve the neutrality problem.

Edit wars could be solved by tagging editors with an either/or status - meaning the same person could only edit one section, not both. Of course, any measure of decorum will have loopholes, but then it will become obvious over time who the real "hate-mongers" are by the edit changes.

Doesn't it all boil down to - who is hating who here? Are the white-pride people hating the non-whites? Or are the anti-whites hating the white-priders? Just let everyone have their say - WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL HERE?

Sixftblonde (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC) sixftblonde
 * I think we can protray them neutrally. I think yuo just said we should do what I suggested. You might wanna change the name it sounds like your a neo nazi.YVNP (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Home page in external links
Isn't there a policy against the home page of this site being in the external links or something? I thought there was a policy against links to hate sites in wikipedia articles. I noticed some other articles that have the home page to hate sites as well. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)