Talk:Stormfront (website)/Archive 7

protected
I've protected the article from editing owing to way too much back and forth over the last day or so. Please use this time to try and grow a consensus here on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Gwen -- We've had four eight or so editors trying to work on this in one direction (for instance, keeping the lede short and stormfront advertising slant out of the lede), and these eight or so (i'm one of them) have been constantly overridden by another, single editor. While i suppose full protection isn't a bad place to start, it's not the ideal one. I really do believe we have a behavioral/POV problem here involving one editor. If you haven't (i'm pretty sure you have) cast an eye over the edit history of the article for the past few days.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, full protection (as I see it) is an outcome brought by a failure of open editing and should be kept short. I only protected the page to stop the back-and-forth. I do see and understand the worries. If there is a clear consensus among the active editors here, hopefully it can now be acknowledged, with further discussion as to how edits outside that consensus can be dealt with. As for behaviour, has there been tendentious editing or 3rr? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Skomorokh, it does look like the article would settle down if you stopped editing the text and dealt with your concerns here on the talk page. Are you willing to do this? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Gwen, with all due respect I think you have it backwards: I have contributed the majority of the text that currently makes up the article, and the majority of that of the additions of the last four days. I don't think anyone is disputing that I have referenced it to reliable sources. It is other editors who have concerns with what I have added. As you will notice on this talkpage, I have repeatedly tried to initiate discussion on the editors' concerns with little constructive response. The editors disputing the content have removed what they did not like instead of bringing it up on the talkpage in most instances. I am happy for us all to meticulously go through the article and discuss how to improve it, and to engage in discussion with anyone who has a problem with what I have added.  Skomorokh  19:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The burden is not on everyone else to justify why your additions should not stand, but on you to justify the additions. Tom Harrison Talk 20:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, how about I say I believe that the material added is relevant and faithfully supported by reliable sources, other editors dispute specific instances where they feel this is not the case, and we see if we can reach consensus? Skomorokh  20:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

On further review, I've lifted the protection. Skomorokh, please think about not making edits to the article unless and until you have consensus for each edit. Speaking neutrally, I do think the current text gives undue weight to Stormfront's PoV and is lacking in sourced criticism. Moreover, now that I've had time to look over the contribution history and talk page more thoroughly, I think there is a group of active editors who can likely reach a consensus in handling these worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time Gwen. I should think that all editors ought to refrain from editing unless there is consensus first. If you are aware of any sourced criticism that can be neutrally accommodated but has not been, please let us know. AFAIK, there are no pro-Stormfront/white supremacist/nationalist/Neo-Nazi sources used in the article at present. Skomorokh  20:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hopefully, editors will stick to making consensus edits. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If the article will be stable enough for me to read it and check the references before it changes, I'm sure we can make progress. Tom Harrison Talk 21:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as there are no mass removals of cited content or moving claims away from what the sources say, I'm happy to sit on my hands and chat here. Skomorokh  21:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Back and forth on process

 * Ah, i see that protection has been lifted. This might be a good way to work for a little while, though. I guess we'll see what happens.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Bali, it seems to me that your issues are with the actual text of the body first and foremost - the weighting of what I included in the lede was an editorial decision, sure, but the wording and content were taken almost verbatim from the sections. Again I must stress that the lede should be an accessible summary of the article, nothing more. If the body of the article needs work, then let's concentrate on getting sources to address that, but let's not alter the lede to what we wish it would be like without support from reliable sources. Skomorokh  20:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As my forebearers said "The fish rots from the head." Let's start with the head.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You've got it backwards - the article does not take its cue from the lead; the lead follows the article blindly. What do you intend to do, change the lead to what you would like it to say, and then remove the cited statements in the texts that disagree with your perspective? Skomorokh  21:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to say if you support or oppose in the sub-section i've created up above.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Racial/racialist and NPOV
Editors have twice replaced the word "racialist" with "racist" in the lead section of the article. The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the article, and the line summarized here reads "Stormfront is comprehensive and frequently updated, hosting files from and links to a number of racialist organizations, an online dating service (for "heterosexual White Gentiles only"), and electronic mailing lists that allow the white nationalist community to discuss issues of interest."

The "racialist organisations" segment is excerpted from the Kaplan ref, the relevant section of which (p.24), reads: "Stormfront offers files from a number of racialist groups, hypertext links to a number of others, and several e-mail discussion and news lists that allow the White nationalist community to discuss issues of interest"

The wording is clear: the organizations are racialist rather than racist, and those terms have distinct meanings. This appears to be yet another instance of distorting the sources to support a particular POV rather than building a neutral and accurate article. Skomorokh 20:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Whitewashing POV.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate please? Are you contesting the fact that the source uses the term "racialist" rather than "racist", or that Wikipedia should use the terms the source uses rather than those personally favoured by editors? Skomorokh  20:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I find this ridiculous, I'm sorry but the article shows that this organization is a racist organization period. I would also like to state with watching todays activities I am taking this article off my watchlist.  The reason is I find it very agrevating to see one editor jump in on every other editor's edit sometimes within seconds of them making an edit.  I find the edit summaries rude and WP:OWN is at play.  So I will be leaving here now.  I do not edit in an environment like this where an editor leaves messages at other editors talk page or calls out an editor every time someone edits.  Good luck, the article is yours as far as I am concerned.  Sorry if this sounds strongly worded but I think enough has been said about this but yet it continues.  Happy editing, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  20:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * To be honest I am quite tired of the bad faith accusations being thrown about here. I have initiated discussion on the contentious areas in order to work out issues and reach consensus; I am perfectly happy to collaborate with other editors, and believe that the back-and-forth editing between myself and Bali ultimate have improved this article. At no time have I demanded that editors consult me before making changes; I've reverted an edit once when I was not sure the editor was aware of the ramifications of their edits, and a second time on the category issue after fruitlessly asking the editor in question to support the addition of the content with reliable sources. Your only action was to remove neutral, reliably sourced and relevant content, then admitting you were wrong but not restoring it. I've reported this page to the NPOV noticeboard. Skomorokh  20:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I also said in the edit summary to feel free to revert. If you look you were busy editing and edit conflicts continued.  I admitted I was wrong but also pointed out the the article spoke about more things which you shot down.  What I was saying is that you picked that specific item because you said it had to do with the site saying it and the other ones I mentioned wasn't from the site, fine.  A newspaper article says all kinds of things, I personally think you are giving too much weight to items you think are important.  As for bad faith assumptions, it's hard not to think you feel you own this article when you are adjusting edits as soon as they are made, hiding them because the editor didn't get the source in fast enough and questioning every editor who make a comment.  No I haven't done anything, I need to read up on what's there first and this take me time because I am slow as an editor.  I have to be able to read and sometimes reread the refs so I get it in my head.  Sorry if that bothers you but being disabled causes me some problems towards being a quick and good editor.  Now like I said, you won't have to worry about me, add your item back into the article that I deleted and please just leave me out of this, thanks.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  20:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I didn't see your "feel free to revert" comment. I'm wary of restoring my preferred version as I don't think we are agreed on what should be included yet and there is no hurry. Regards, Skomorokh  21:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Further instances
These edits are further choice rewordings from ("racialists" to "racists") in contravention of the Kaplan ref, the cited section of which reads "Stormfront put Don Black in the spotlight, both for racialists throughout the world and for a number of watchdog groups—most notably the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Anti-Defamation League."

Skomorokh 20:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you WP:OWN this article. Good job.  A non-racist like me understands that "racialist" is a code word for a fucking racist.  Give me a break.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Racialist is just an older term for racist. There's really no question that it's a racist website.







Tom Harrison Talk 20:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, Tom. We are not talking about the website itself here but third parties, as you will see if you read the sections quoted. If it is true that "racialist" and "racist" are always used synonymously, then it seems unimportant which is used, but I do not believe that this is the case (our own article on racialist does not indicate support for the claim, for example). Skomorokh  20:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You can assume I've read before commenting. Tom Harrison Talk 20:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What distinctions are you trying to make between "racist" and "racialist" in this case? Also, what distinctions are you trying to make between "the website itself" and "third parties"? Most of the content of the website is its bulletin boards, which are filled with comments by "third parties". Jayjg (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Jay, see the quotes from the source above and my comment below; this is not about Stormfront itself. I'm not trying to make a distinction; English is not my first language - I am simply unconvinced that the source is necessarily using the terms synonymously, which seems to be an interpretive leap to me. Skomorokh  20:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See the source below. "Racialist" is simply an older, superseded term for "racist". Now, what distinction were you trying to make between "the website itself" and "third parties"? Jayjg (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The dictionary says "largely superseded"; the two dictionary entries come which come up in the first page of results in a Google search for "racialist" indicate a distinction ( and vs. ). "Racist" clearly has a more negative connotation, and I do not understand we we would want to replace the term used in the source with one with such negative connotations; it does not seem to be in the spirit of NPOV. As to the website vs. third parties question, if you look at the series of edits, you'll see the terms are not being applied to Stormfront itself, but rather third party groups, organisations and individuals (rendering Tom's sources above orthogonal). Hope this helps.  Skomorokh  21:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Maybe the paragraph is unclear out of context, but it is specifically calling the organisations Stormfront links to and those for whom Stormfront put Don Black in the spotlight, rather than Stormfront itself, racialist. I assumed by "the website" you were referring to Stromfront, which perhaps is were the confusion arose. I don't have access to the OED definition; would you mind telling us what it says? Thanks, Skomorokh  20:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm getting tired of your whitewashing. When are you going to admit that you're either a Stormfront supporter, or in fact a part of the organization?   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Orangemarlin, there's no point in discussing individuals. Simply deal with the edits, and we should have no trouble keeping this article factual and in compliance with WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * *support use of "racist" in place of "racialist" a word that is used in this context by racists to obscure their true intents. Also, it's the term used by a preponderance of reliable sources that address this org.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Bali, neither "racist" or "racialist" are used in the article to refer to Stormfront, but to third parties. Are you suggesting Jeffrey Kaplan (the source of the term) uses "racialist" rather than "racist" to obscure his true intent? Skomorokh  21:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me repeat a PREPONDERANCE of sources calls this group racist: NYT, WP, Salon, ADL, NAACP, the Weistenthal people, scholars of racist hate groups like Brian Levin, CNN, the LA Times, etc... That's why they should be called racists. It's what they are, and it's how most every reliable source describes.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Call which group racist? Do you appreciate that we are not talking about Stormfront here? Skomorokh  21:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep saying what "we" are talking about. I'm not sure you're in the best position to make that determination. Tom Harrison Talk 21:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Allow me to clarify: these three edits did not change the description of Stormfront. The article does not describe Stormfront as racist or racialist, nor has it in recent memory. Skomorokh  21:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

<--Okay, maybe I've misunderstood. From the article as it is now, what changes would you like to see? Tom Harrison Talk 21:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like the three edits reverted so that the groups and individuals are described as the source describes them - "racialist". The arguments for changing to racist seem to be to boil down to racist=racialist anyway and/or using racialist instead of racist is "POV whitewashing". If the terms are synonymous, then the latter argument would seem not to apply. If the latter argument does apply and the former does not, either the source cited is guilty of POV whitewashing, or Wikipedia should not follow reliable sources in its prose, neither of which are positions that seem particularly plausible to me. I don't see why we ought not to use the verified terminology; we have no way of knowing whether the unnamed groups and individuals in question are racists. Regards, Skomorokh  21:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added sources that describe them by the more common synonym, "racist". There are many more, but these should suffice to deal with your concerns. Jayjg (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your sources seem to apply to Stormfront—again, no-one is disputing that Stormfront is considered a racist site. It's the third parties referred to here that are in question. Thanks very much for the addition nevertheless (though they need to go in the body of the article rather than the summary). Regards, Skomorokh  22:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, you've finally explained what you mean by "third parties". The source you had already sufficed for that, since "racialist" is just an older deprecated term for "racist", but I've added another source just to satisfy you. Regarding going in the body, the additions need to be in both places. I would be helpful if you could add them to the body too. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the source on the links to organisations; though I've changed the wording to "white racist" in concurrence with the source. If there are no objections, I'll copy the new lead content to the body of the article somewhere, and restore the other mentions to the source wording. I've also changed the formatting of the refs you added to use citation templates and info from Ottobib; hope you don't mind. Thanks again for the additions, Skomorokh  19:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Seeing as no-one seems to have a problem with this proposal, I'll move ahead with it in the next day or two (barring objections). Skomorokh  14:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't even know what the "proposal" is. If it's to substitute "racialist" for "racist" I'm strongly opposed.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it is not to blanket replace one term with another. The proposal was to incorporate Jayjg's additions to the lede into the body of the article and to use the terminology used by the reliable sources in the article - for example that Stormfront is a "racist" rather than "white nationalist" website, and that it attracted attention from "racialists". Skomorokh  20:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The difference between "racialist" and "racist" is there, although most people would probably regard it as a distinction without a difference. Racialist in my view is a person intensely concerned about race matters, particularly regarding advocacy for the benefit of his race. Racist is a person who thinks his race is better or others are worse - not just different or worthy of pride. The two words are probably often misused by both sides of the debate, but Wikipedia should not play that game. Wholesale replacement of "racialist" with "racist" is not right. But nor is whitewashing true racism by calling it "racialism." There is room for the proper use of BOTH terms in this article. 72.11.124.226 (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment, interesting. I agree that there is room for both terms, and that Wikipedia should not play ideological games but stick to what the sources say, i.e. "Stormfront is a racist website that appeals to racialists". Skomorokh  20:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but my definition doesn't jibe with the dictionary, and therein lies the problem. For example, the NAACP is not in my view a racist organization, but they are racially oriented and therefore racialist (just looking at the word etymology). Maybe there is a better term for it, but I can't think of what it would be.72.11.124.226 (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposals for the lede
I have a number of proposals for the lede and the rest of the article. I understand that arguing for large, block changes in these sorts of cases is less likely to get anywhere than bit sized ones. In that spirit i have two proposals to start with, and obviously *support them both as nom.

1. The current third graph should be changed to read "The website is structured as a theme-based discussion forum with numerous boards for topics including "Ideology and Philosophy - Foundations for White Nationalism," "Science, Technology and Race - Genetics, eugenics, racial science and related subjects," and "Revisionism - Reexamining history, particularly the court historians' version of World War II." Stormfront also hosts news stories, sells merchandise, provides extensive links to racist organizations and has content aimed at children. The site has a coat of arms featuring a Celtic cross common to neo-fascist iconography surrounded by the motto "White Pride World Wide"."

(summary of changes: specifics on some of the forums so readers will know what they discuss rather than generic, non-specific "has a science forum, has a philosophy forum, etc"... tweaks language, removes puffery about the "adept" design of its bog-standard format).
 * Oppose. I think we can remove what the topics for the boards are completely. These are too long and the others could be construed as making the intent. I also think the last line (about the "logo") should be dropped. Trying to link the Celtic cross with neo-fascist iconography would be OR. Padillah (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Roger Eatwell is cited as linking the Celtic cross with neo-fascist iconography in the Design and iconography section. Skomorokh  22:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

2. To remove the current fourth graph from the lede in its entirety. This is the current text: "Black's purposes in establishing Stormfront were to highlight what he perceived to be anti-white discrimination, to serve as a counterpoint to the mainstream news media and to foster a community of white nationalists. Tactics used by Stormfront to support its ideas include the quotation of respected documents and quotes, the use of biblical scriptures and the incorporation of Darwinian evolutionary theory in arguments."

I do believe their attempt to convince people of their views using what are widely considered to be mischarecterizations of Darwin and Scripture should be addressed in the article but this is not appropriate for the lede, and certainly not in the highly-favorable language that Don Black, the neo-nazi who founded the site, would like used.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. I'd like to find someone that says they misuse the quotes and scientific principles so tht we can blatantly say so. Until we can find some one to say so we're stuck with "using quotes" and that sounds like they are using them correctly. Padillah (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Padillah -- this source [] has a lot of good stuff in this vein. When i made this proposal i thought we were in full protection mode. We no longer are. Have at it. It was my intent to write up my opinion of how it should be used and take it here, but by all means read it and if you want to make edits on that basis, have at it. Won't be me tonight (went out, drank too much).Bali ultimate (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That is the source I took the original info from. If it had said Stormfront had misused/manipulated the quotes/texts, I would have written it that way. Let's look at what it actually says about Stormfront, taking the Deference to Documented Authority section as an example:


 * So we know from this source that one person has taken a quotation out of context in an effort to legitimize Stormfront's agenda. Okay, fine, but that is not of interest to us because it's only one individual case and does not speak to Stormfront in general. What is of interest is the last line that does; it says Stormfront itself offers quotations from famous Western figures that are anarchronistic. Now, that does not logically imply misrepresentation (they could be anachronistic because the person quoting has a poor grasp of history or exegesis), but it's good to put in the article. Again, it looks like you and Padillah have as a first priority having your POV that Stormfront misuses science/religion/history in the article, and as a second priority to justify that perspective with clear statements in reliable sources (Struck, see below comment). If the support is there, I'm all for its inclusion. I think that is backwards; sources first, summary second is the editorially responsible way to go. Skomorokh  14:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Pardon me if I take umbrage with someone not only establishing that I have an agenda but telling me what my agenda is. My "POV" is to write an article about the Stormfront site, not to make a reprint of the site in WP. "Neutral" doesn't mean "nice", it means reporting from both sides. I'll thank you to keep accusations of POV pushing and agendas out of the conversation. You don't like it when it's done to you so please respect others as you would have us respect you. Padillah (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Woah, sorry, poor choice of terms on my part perhaps. I did not mean to imply that either of you were POV-pushing, because I don't think you are (everyone has a point of view, but I don't see you two trying to push yours anywhere). What I meant was that I thought you and Bali ultimate seem to agree that Stormfront misrepresents things (i.e. that this was your point of view), and wanted that put in the article, and that it seemed like a secondary priority to see what the sources said on the issue. I apologise unreservedly for the misunderstanding and have struck my above comments. I hope we can work together without acrimony here, and I'll be sure to phrase my comments more carefully in future. Respectfully, Skomorokh  15:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it and understand now what you saw happening. If you look again I hope you'll see that what I want is a citation so we can stop dancing around the fact. As you mentioned, noting that a quote is anachronistic doesn't help much. There's way too many reasons for a person to make what may appear to be an anachronistic quote for this fact have any bearing on the article. What we need is either someone saying Stormfront is misquoting people (or, at the very least, misusing the quotes out of context) or drop it. The effort to try and say it without using the words is not helping. Padillah (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, we are agreed that we will have to find a source for the claim of misrepresentation before putting it anywhere in the article. You don't think the Tactics section as it stands adds value to the article? Or is this just about emphasis in the lede? Skomorokh  15:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The lead section - what it ought to look like
Regarding this request. The lead currently summarises only the History section, and part of the Content section. Per WP:LEDE, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" and "in a well-constructed article, the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text". In a neutral summary, the entire article is represented, not just the parts a particular editor likes. Skomorokh 16:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're not summarizing what's important, you seem to be relying on primary sources from stormfront for your points and, no, per wp:lede the most important things in the article aren't blacks self-serving spins on his intentions. The most important bits are: What is this site? What does it stand for? And maybe on or two of the most interesting details. Strong oppose. And don't change "American Nazi Party" to national socialist whatsits again, ok?Bali ultimate (talk) 16:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is not a single instance of using Stormfront as a primary source in this article. [ www.stormfront.org /dblack/racist_021998.htm The source cited] for the American Nazi Party claim does not say Black was a member of the American Nazi Party - it says "In 1970, a year later, Black joined the Virginia-based, neo-Nazi National Socialist White People's Party". What are you talking about? Skomorokh  17:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I must admit I don't quite understand the difference. Both link to the same article. Unless Skomorokh is trying to argue that they might be different? Padillah (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the National Socialist White People's Party was renamed the American Nazi Party at some point. It might be inaccurate to say he joined the ANP when the organisation he joined was the NSWPP. With NSWPP we cover ourselves because it's referenced (so any mistake is the source's fault and not ours). Why not just write what the source says? National Socialist White People's Party redirects to American Nazi Party anyway, so anyone interested enough to follow up will get the full story. For the record, I know nothing about either organisation beyond what the Wikipedia articles say. Skomorokh  17:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then, to me, this looks like a case of being faithful to the citation fact-for-fact, not word-for-word. What do both of you say to listing the current name of the organization vs. the main WP article on the organization? I'd go with WP article name with WP:EGG tipping the balance for me (all things being equal if that's what it's called on WP then let's keep it that way). Padillah (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've had another read of the American Nazi Party article and the story looks a little different. It was originally called the ANP and then renamed the NSWPP in 1967, but the rename never stuck in the popular consciousness. So the org Black joined was what was commonly known as the American Nazi Party. So I'm happy with the current wording. Skomorokh  17:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Bali ultimate for this edit. It's good to know we can come to agreement after talking things through a little. Skomorokh 18:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
I, once again, respectfully request that Skomorokh divulge his relationship to either Neo-Nazi's in general or Stormfront specifically. Otherwise, I'm going to place a COI tag on every one of his edits. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 23:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, no. That's not a reasonable request, and your proposed action is, shall we say, pointy. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've moved on. Drinking a beer.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 06:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I demand to know what kind of beer OrangeMarlin is drinking. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

about neutrality
Neutrality has to do with what reliable and independent sources have to say about an organization, not what an organization has to say about itself on its own website. Moreover, WP:WEIGHT means the article PoV should follow and echo the independent sources. Lastly, an editor's take on what that website has to say might easily be original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, what's the relevance here? The only place we quote what Stormfront has to say about itself on its own website is in the epigraph containing the mission statement. I completely agree that the article should follow and echo the independent sources, and think this is an important point against the idea that the article should reflect popular opinion. Skomorokh  16:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you heedfully read WP:WEIGHT? Either way, please slow down and gather consensus here before making edits to the article. It may take time to hear back from some of the active editors but that's ok. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source, so there's no hurry, no emergency. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've read WEIGHT; in what specific instances do you feel the use of sources in this article is unfaithful to it? And what do you mean slow down and gather consensus? I haven't made a major edit to the page since you requested yesterday, and have been discussing the relevant issues here. Skomorokh  16:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm here only as a neutral admin so I can't go over each shred of content with you, other than to say, NPoV doesn't mean no PoV, it means a description of the sundry PoVs carried by reliable sources, with the PoVs most often carried by the most reliable sources carrying the most weight in the Wikipedia article. Meanwhile I think it would be very helpful if you'd not make any edits to the article at all unless such edits are supported by a consensus of other editors active on this talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, you were trying to clarify to us what the relevant policy is rather than make a complaint that the article does not meet it? That's helpful, sorry for misinterpreting you. Skomorokh  17:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair that should be asked of all the editors to this page, myself and Bali included. I don't think I could support restricted editing by one person and unfettered editing by others. That's just as slanted. Padillah (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. As I said yesterday, this would mean all editors. I brought it up with Skomorokh again because Skomorokh seems to have carried on making small edits without waiting for a clear consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know about specific instances but I know it's taking an effort for me not to view the piece-meal, one-off, "hope you don't mind" editing as a way to ease in edits without facing too many objections. Not to speak for Gwen (who I respect too much to try and speak for) but that's my personal issue. I hope I'm not accusing, I don't mean to. I mean to point out a set of circumstances that could be misconstrued. Padillah (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll stop the piecemeal edits; they were only to correct my own errors ("quoted a quotation") to remove unsourced content and to try and make a concession to those who feel the article is overly sympathetic to the subject. I'm perfectly happy not to edit the article until there is consensus to do so as long as other editors are too, but it seems at least might not accept this.  Skomorokh  17:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't very well rewrite the article and then insist that no one edit further until there is consensus. Tom Harrison Talk 17:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not insisting anything; it was Gwen's suggestion that the page not be edited until there was consensus to do so. I'm only indicating my agreement with it. Skomorokh  17:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I normally do not soapbox, at leats not since stopping being a wiki novice, but this calls for it. Fuck, I hate nazis. With a passion. I have physically confronted neo-nazis. I have had credible death threats throw at me by active neo-nazis. Members of my family are active militant anti-fascists (am a bit out of shape for it as age overcomes me). But, let the facts speak for themselves. If we let their hate overcome our need to build a encyclopedia that collects the sum of the worlds knowledge, in a neutral, reliably sourced, verifiable way, we are letting their totalitarian wet-dreams win. I edited the intro to allow the common decency of self-description, something we afford many fringe believes, including those many consider hateful or crazy, like Scientology or the Flat Earth Society. This article is about "Stormfront" not about the critics of Stormfront. However, overwhleming verifiability says that their self-description is a fringe believe, and sources are overwhelming in other descriptions. The wording I put in does both things in a way that doesn't mangle the english language, or uses WTA formulations. I hope people realize it is the best version possible, that keeps our dignity as a project that prides itself on its neutrality and lack of censorship. If we do not allow thier voice to be heard unaltered (which is not the same as uncountered), we are lowering ourselves to their level. We are better than them. We shall win. We shall do so without becoming them. --Cerejota (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it. However, there are no reliable sources that dispute these descriptions; they are simple fact. Jayjg (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My rewrite doesn't deny this. It simply allows for a primary source self-description that is not being allowed (which is reliable in this case). Compare to Scientology, which pretty much any non-scientology, non-hollywood source calls a cult (including New Yorker magazine!) or Flat Earth Society which not only sources, but I would argue common knowledge calls "a bunch of crazies". That's my sourcing argument. Then of course is neutrality, which I already soapboxed about. I am not reverting you as you do have a point on consensus, and the last thing I need is my boldness to create free drama, but I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot. It is in the fringes and extremes were our values are more tested, if we fail them there, we are failing them everywhere. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The content of other articles on en.Wikipedia doesn't, in itself, have much sway here: Please have a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As I said above, neutrality has to do with what reliable and independent sources have to say about an organization. What any organization has to say about itself on its own website cannot be taken as reliable, hence the overwhelming weight given to independent, reliable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For lack of a better place, here's my two cents. I've studied carefully the article, some of the sources, and in particular the back and forth here on the talk page. I'm not able to identify where Skomorokh is pursuing a POV, rather I see their desire to create an article which can meet the FAC criteria on its own merits. I do detect a certain POV on the part of other editors who seem determined that the outcome will express only one view, and this extends to a desire to apply certain "obvious" labels.
 * I'm most troubled by the neo-Nazi labelling, I'm unable to find a mainstream source for this (and if I can, it will be here in a microsecond). The label of "white supremacist" seems uncontroversial, I'd add "despicable" and "vile" had I the choice, but I haven't seen the neo-Nazi label applied apart from the usual suspects. From my browsing of the many sources referenced above, in fact, it would appear that the site operators have latterly made an effort to remove this paraphernalia, and in fact, the neo-Nazis now consider that stormfront doesn't go far enough. (I'll try to dig that up on request) At the least then, there should be some historical perspective - leaving no doubt about the white supremacist aspect. In summary, I think that maybe Skomorokh's approach is possibly being misinterpreted by other editors with agendas of their own.
 * FD: I'm a blue-eyed and blond-haired (well, grey and not much left :) male, my father was in the militia, six months away from active service in the army when WWII ended, my mother was an eight-year-old in Copenhagen when the Nazis shipped all the police officers to concentration camps. There's no love there at all, except for love of the objective truth. Franamax (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW this was the change:

The Stormfront White Nationalist Community is a white pride Internet forum, widely considered to be white supremacist, neo-Nazi and as the Internet's first major hate site, and the first and most popular racist website.

(The above was copy-pasted by Cerejota)


 * I already saw it. By the way, there's no need to copy-paste changes as text onto a talk page, rather, that's what diffs are for (and either way, that crummy syntax is bound to be fixed by someone sooner rather than later). Gwen Gale (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Franamax said, "I'm most troubled by the neo-Nazi labelling, I'm unable to find a mainstream source for this..." What about the four references in footnote b? I don't understand who are the usual sources you refer to in italics, but here are three:
 * RCMP will not pursue charges in CHRC case; Human rights body accused of hacking into Web account - Joseph Brean, National Post, November 21, 2008 Friday - "They were seeking the identity of whoever logged on to the neo-Nazi Web site stormfront.org under the name..."
 * Admitted 'Nazi' Fined For Internet Hate Speech; Must Pay $4,500 Total - Don Butler, CanWest News Service, October 27, 2007 Saturday - "Between October, 2003, and May, 2006, Ms. Beaumont, writing under the pseudonym "Jessy Destruction," posted more than 1,000 messages on the Canadian forum of Stormfront. org, an American neo-Nazi Web site."
 * How not to handle a genteel racist: Dalhousie Non-debate: White supremacist invited, disinvited, roughed up and in the end, glorified - Joseph Brean, National Post, January 27, 2007 Saturday - "Late last month, the first public notice made its way on to Stormfront.org, an American neo-Nazi Web site, whose moderator encouraged like-minded Nova Scotians to attend."

Lexis/Nexis says there are 39 more instances of "neo-Nazi" within five words of "Stromfront," but I'm getting tired of this. Tom Harrison Talk 05:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep - my library subscriptiom is broken right now, so no specific comment. NP/CanWest are the same thing, so all I can ask at the moment is whether your cites were published as general news or under "Comment", "Analysis" or "Opinion" bylines. I agree that it's tiresome, all I need is a smoking gun in the form of a reliable item, perhaps a news item from the Toronto Star or Globe & Mail for Canada, Time (magazine) or Newsweek for the US, The Economist globally. Anything that doesn't represent an opinion. Anything. Franamax (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Aternatively, if anyone cares to, privately email me a link from the stormfront.org website which demonstrates any of neo-Nazism, Holocaust denial, race wars etc. and I will be satisfied with OR. White supremacy is a given, since that is the purpose of the site, crappy as that purpose may be. Franamax (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Franamax, what is your objection to the four sources that are already listed in foot note b? Tom Harrison Talk 13:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was asking about the context of the quotes. My subscription is back up now and I've reviewed 30 or so news articles mentioning the site, including the ones you mention above. I find that the much more common descriptor is "white supremacist" and "white pride" but there are sufficient mentions of "neo-Nazi" that I would agree that this characterization exists in the media. I still think there is a difference between neo-Nazis posting to the site and the site itself being neo-Nazi, however, sufficient RS exist that call stormfront.org a neo-Nazi website, so I'm fine now :) Franamax (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Mass-mediated terrorism ref
Regarding this edit by, the book does discuss Stormfront on page 114, as this link should show:. Skomorokh 17:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh, so it does. But not here . I wonder why. Tom Harrison Talk 18:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Beats me. I don't think I added those Google Books links (see above section). Skomorokh  18:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I had a look at the history of the article and it was that added the links to Google Books in this series of edits. Ask them and you need wonder no more :)  Skomorokh  18:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like a different edition. Thanks for catching my mistake, Tom Harrison Talk 00:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. Skomorokh  12:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

September 11th Jewish involvement issue
The War and the Media source listed above contains the fact that there was "much reference on Stormfront to a story, originally published in the Arab press that Jews had been warned not to show up at their World Trade Center offices on the day of the attacks" (see 9/11_conspiracy_theories). The source claims that this "was used as evidence to buttress the arguments … that Mossad was behind the attacks" (see 9/11_advance-knowledge_debate). This is interesting, and seems like something that would be a hot button issue for Stormfront, but I'm not sure it's substantive enough to merit inclusion, nor is it clear where it would fit in. Thoughts? Skomorokh 14:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:FRINGE.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with marlin. Only purpose would be to bolster the fact that this group is anti-semitic and conspiracy minded; there are better examples for both.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What are the better examples? The article does not go into any depth on the anti-semitism or conspiracy issues in the article; which sources are you alluding to? Skomorokh  19:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Still waiting on those sources, Bali ultimate. Skomorokh  21:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Engineering and technology Good Article
Why is this article listed under the above category? It would not appear to be about either engineering or technology. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a website, so it falls under "technology" Sceptre (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I suspect Sceptre is correct. This was previously discussed here. Skomorokh  18:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh right, thanks. I had just assumed it would fall into another societal category.  Jezhotwells (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries, the categorisation is less than ideal, I agree. Skomorokh  20:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I just hope nobody finds more than three sources saying they're a website, or we'll have to rename the page. Tom Harrison Talk 18:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Some potential references
We should rely less on self-description. The article as it is now spends too much time articulating the site's views. Some books that may be useful:

















Tom Harrison Talk 22:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Are these available online at all? If not, could you excerpt some quotes from them relating to Stormfront? Thanks for the great idea, initiative and effort you've shown in starting this section, it's much appreciated. Skomorokh  22:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice list. Looks like I've just found a reason to get a library card for my new city. Padillah (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Much of the content is readable with Google Books. Tom Harrison Talk 23:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Great, I'll have a look and attach some relevant quotes to your refs if you don't mind. Skomorokh  23:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Tom Harrison Talk 14:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting stuff; I'd like to include it, though given our lack of coverage of the beliefs of the majority of Stormfront posters it might be giving undue weight towards the National Anarchists at the expense of the "traditional fascists". We could stick a brief mention it in the Ideology subsection, and expand on it once we have more to say about the middle-of-the-road Stormfronter? If nothing else, it's useful to indicate a degree of ideological diversity w.r.t. Stromfront. Thanks for the source, Tom. Skomorokh  14:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Alpha HQ -
 * Tom Harrison Talk 15:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems to be paywalled; can you quote us what it says about Stormfront? Thanks, Skomorokh  15:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quotes, very helpful. It looks like we could make a subsection on sites Stormfront hosts, covering the MLK site and Alpha HQ. Skomorokh  17:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quotes, very helpful. It looks like we could make a subsection on sites Stormfront hosts, covering the MLK site and Alpha HQ. Skomorokh  17:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Does anyone object to adding a few lines about Alpha HQ? I was thinking it and the coverage of the Martinlutherking.org site could go in a new subsection in Content. Thoughts? Skomorokh  12:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the lack of interest in developing this, I intend to add these topics to the article per WP:SILENCE. Skomorokh  03:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It rather depends upon the content of what you propose to add. Verbal   chat  07:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Good_article_reassessment
Would be an appropriate step for this article, IMO.  Enigma msg 00:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye, the only difficulty would be that it would necessarily fail on criterion five regardless of its merits. Skomorokh  05:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering what's been going on for the last week, I do feel that it should not be a good article right now, and it should be re-assessed after it settles down at some point.  Enigma msg  20:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed per POV
I removed this because it is very POV. I am still reading things here but it's being heavily edited by User:Skomorokh which is making it difficult to do. Personally I think s/he should slow down a little and at least bring some of these changes to the talk page for discussion since s/he seems to think the article should be one way and most others disagree, but of course that is just my opinion. Please feel free to revert me if you disagree. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  21:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the Washington Post is insufficiently neutral? The wording I added is almost exactly that of the source, and gives the reader context on why the Stormfront members were concerned with Obama's candicacy. Could you please explain your concern? Skomorokh  21:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Eli Saslow of WaPo: "Posters on Stormfront complain that Obama represents the end of "white rule" and the beginning of "multiculturalism." They fear that he will promote affirmative action, support illegal immigration and help render whites, who make up two-thirds of the U.S. population, "the new minority."" The text I added: "[Stormfront members] … feared that Obama would promote affirmative action, support illegal immigration and help render white people a minority in the United States." I'm afraid I don't see where the POV is supposed to have crept in. Skomorokh  21:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems like cherry picking to me, sorry. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  21:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * How do you propose we put the claim that Stormfront members were concerned with Obama's candidacy in context? Why is listing the reasons for their concern not the best way of doing this? Skomorokh  21:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Skomorokh, I think it's more likely that Crohnie thinks that not the Wahington Post, but you, are insufficiently neutral and cannot be relied upon to fairly characterize the contents of the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure the editor can speak for herself. I won't deign to respond to your contemptible comments on my editorial integrity. Skomorokh  00:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok on this one I will back off and state I am wrong. I apparently missed this or didn't digest it propery when I read it since I was reading a lot of different refs trying to catch up with things here. I would also point out that there are other comments made in this article that has this site using the Obama election win for other reasons to push their agenda other than the ones you are stating which is one of the reasons I felt that what you put in was POV and cherry picking. Here is what they said in one section; "One person put it this way: Obama for president paves the way for David Duke as president," said Duke, who ran for president in 1988, received less than 1 percent of the vote and has since spent much of his time in Europe. "This is finally going to make whites begin to realize it's a necessity to stick up for their own heritage, and that's going to make them turn to people like me. We're the next logical step." " Also I would like to point out this quote "The groups also despise Republican Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for his moderate views on immigration and his willingness to stick with the Iraq war. Better for Obama to win, leaders said, because his presidency could fuel a recruitment drive big enough to launch events that the white power movement has spent decades anticipating."'' (Bolding and italics mine)

Now the bolding is, at least to me as important or more important to them then just the comments you selected, which I might add could be incorporated in what you want to put into the article. Anyways, I hope this explains better what I find in the article to be important comments by this group compared to what you chose. By no means are mine more important than yours, I am just trying to show that the article shows more than the selection you chose to present. I hope I am clear in what I am stating. If you look at my user page you will see that my medical causes me some problems here that I try to over come as best as I can but it still gets in my way unfortunately, sorry if this is a problem to anyone. Thanks again for listening. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  12:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with the bolded comments you have selected is that the journalist does not present them as representative of Stormfront. The first is a quote from David Duke, who if he is a Stormfront member is only one of tens of thousands, and we have no way of knowing (per WP:V) the extent to which his views are shared by Stormfront at large. Similarly, the second bolded comment is attributed by the journalist to "Neo-Nazi and white power groups", of which Stormfront is presumably only one component. This gives us the reverse problem that the Duke quote does – we cannot know the extent to which the aggregate concerns of all the groups follow those of Stormfront members; is Stromfront more or less radical/afraid/prejudicial than "Neo-Nazi and white power groups"? No way of knowing without engaging in WP:OR. The selection I chose to excerpt (my method is simply to search for the word "Stormfront" and take information from the sentences in which the word appears):

"Posters on Stormfront complain that Obama represents the end of "white rule" and the beginning of "multiculturalism." They fear that he will promote affirmative action, support illegal immigration and help render whites, who make up two-thirds of the U.S. population, "the new minority.""


 * There is no ambiguity here, no potential for misrepresentation; this is what our reliable source definitively says of "Posters on Stormfront" entire – not one poster, not all American Neo-Nazi and white power groups, but Stormfront posters. I'm still not clear on which POV I am supposed to be pursuing. Skomorokh  12:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

So we still have three candidates for text to include; the two bolded claims uncovered by Crohnie and the "Posters on Stormfront complain" section quoted in my last comment. Now, the first bolded excerpt is from David Duke. Now Duke is a prominent figure in the Stormfront figure I gather (correct me if I am wrong, not too familiar with it), but it would be misrepresentation for us to use his views on this issue to stand in for those of Stormfront itself (the leaders/hierarchy) or the Stormfront community (members/posters) because there is no reliable source that I am aware of that says Duke's views on this issue and those of the latter are the same. As for the second bolded quote, looking at the source again I'm not even sure I stand by my above comment; I don't see that the source includes Stomrfront in "The groups" at all; the only way one could come to this conclusion is by reasoning that because the journalist discussed Stormfront earlier in the article, and Stromfront is a white supremacist group, it must be one of the white supremacist groups discussed. Now this is fine for informal reasoning, but it is complete original research for an encyclopaedia article. That again leaves us with the "Posters on Stormfront..." segment as the only acceptable candidate for inclusion. We could include some of the material from the following section, but I think Don Black's views are already sufficiently represented in the article. I propose re-adding the material from the "Posters on Stormfront" segment to the mention of Obama '08 in the article. Does anyone find flaws in my reasoning here or have another suggestion? Skomorokh 14:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving ahead with this if no-one has anything to contribute. Skomorokh 21:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, new content added; revisions and suggestions welcome. Skomorokh 21:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"It is also a Neo-Nazi website"
This sentence is a bit dodgy, and needs to be reworded. I'm copying a response to Gwen Gale from my talk page: I'm a bit cautious about presenting something as fact that needs more than two citations to assert itself. If it needs more than that, it's really just a widely held viewpoint (and then it becomes wrong to assert it as fact). Sceptre (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a point: I'd like to point out I'm not saying we can't call it a Neo-Nazi website, just that we can't in its current form. We could say something like "Neo-Nazi sentiment is shared on the website, where the...". But as I said, "It is", and an opinion, is self-contradictive. Sceptre (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What, now there are too many citations? Tom Harrison Talk 04:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a balance. Not enough citations, it looks like original research. Too many, and it looks like you're pushing a POV by oversourcing. Sceptre (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone reads a statement and thinks, "Hmm, I'm not sure that's so." He asks for citations, as he should. Some are provided, as they should be. Then someone says, "Ah, now I know it ain't so; if it were, it wouldn't require so many citations," without presenting reliable sources to the contrary. No, it doesn't work that way. Tom Harrison Talk 13:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, facts need little to cite themselves, and opinions need many. If you're attaching six to eight citations on a single statement, it looks like you're trying too hard to prove it. Sceptre (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no need to attach more than a couple of citations as far as I can see. Which would you prefer to keep? Tom Harrison Talk 14:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If we are going to trim references from the footnotes, we should be consistent across the Neo-Nazi, white supremacist and first hate site notes. The least partisan sources/those most respectable to the reader ought to be kept; books published by university presses and non-tabloid national or metropolitan newspapers. Advocacy groups have no place as references in issues of fact imo. Skomorokh  15:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we're facing this the wrong way. As Franamax said, we're trying to make this bulletproof. Removing citations to try and give it a veneer of being a fact makes holes in the vest. I think we should actually give a few more citations, to be honest, and present it as a near-universally held opinion (which doesn't make it a fact, mind) instead. Sceptre (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Removing citations to try and give it a veneer of being a fact makes holes in the vest." Well I thought it was goofy, but it wasn't my idea. It seems like you very much do not want to say what the reliable sources clearly say. I don't know what to make of that, or of these shifting demands for more citations, then fewer, then not fewer. I'd suggest you find some reliable sources that say what you want, but that seems the wrong way around. Tom Harrison Talk 18:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm finding it a little difficult to follow the thread of your proposals too Sceptre. The way I look at the footnotes is a handful of citations looks like a handful of sources use the identification, whereas 5+ makes it look widely shared. Not that it's a particularly important issue. Skomorokh  19:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason it "needs more than two citations" is because for some odd reason people keep denying obvious facts. Are you aware of any reliable sources that say it is not a neo-Nazi website? Otherwise I'm afraid I'll have to remove the tag. Jayjg (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If it was an obvious fact, you'd need, at the most, two citations. As it stands, I think there are five. Pushing it into opinion territory. Widely held opinion, but an opinion nonetheless. Sceptre (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If I were to remove three of the citations would your objection then disappear? Jayjg (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The point I'm trying to make is that it's not as "obvious" as you say it is. Any form of far-right politics is bound to have widely differing definitions, even amongst anti-discrimination scholars and organisations. What is Neo-Nazi to one scholar may not be to another. In the long term, it comes down to interpretation of the movement and Stormfront's objectives. Oh, and the argument that it's a fact that it's Neo-Nazi because there are no sources that prove otherwise is logically fallacious. (And to be honest, I think you have a possible conflict of interest on antisemitism topics). Sceptre (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * According to whom is it not as "obvious" as you say it is? Please make sure the answer isn't User:Sceptre, but instead, a reliable source. Also, I have no "possible conflict of interest on antisemitism topics", don't make that ad hominem assertion again. Jayjg (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't you read negative proof? Wonderful article. Sceptre (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice article, but irrelevant in this case. The fact that Stormfront is a neo-Nazi board is supported by positive assertions made by reliable sources that the site is "neo-Nazi" - not just a lack of sources asserting it is not. Jayjg (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not irrelevant, as you're saying something is true because nothing says it's false. That is the dictionary definition of the negative proof fallacy. I'm currently running two conversations on this: one with Gwen on my talk, and one with you here. From the former, I noted that fascism, and all its derivatives, are so widely defined that it's impossible to get objectivity out of them. "Neo-Nazi" could be a propaganda phrase, or it could be a reasonable assertion based on research. But there's simply no way to tell. That's why we need to get so many sources to agree. And that's why it's ultimately an opinion—a widely and near-universally held one—, but still an opinion nonetheless. Sceptre (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying it's true because multiple reliable sources say its true. That's why the negative proof fallacy doesn't apply. The only source here saying it's not true are a couple of Wikipedia editors. Find some reliable sources to back up your claims, please. Jayjg (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

All the Neo-Nazi references cited identify Stormfront as a Neo-Nazi website. Not that it is notable for the Neo-Nazi views of its members, not that Neo-Nazi sentiment is shared there. Why don't we cut the editorializing and stick to the verifiable information on the topic? Skomorokh 04:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I should say, as a point of order I'm not trying to remove the term "neo-Nazi". I'm trying to find a way where we can avoid the "It is"+opinion construction. "The website espouses Neo-Nazi beliefs" would be fine. "The website contains Neo-Nazi beliefs" would be fine. But I fear the current construction may get challenged for NPOV by not just me, but other people. Sceptre (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sceptre, I agree entirely with you that the Stormfront as Neo-Nazi description is one of opinion rather than fact - I have yet to see a source that made even a half-assed effort to justify the designation. I also belive that Wikipedia ought to be very very careful using identifications which the subject does not embrace, for reasons not unrelated to WP:BLP. But current policy does not agree. More importantly, neither of the claims you quote above are supported by any sources I am aware of. If the price of avoiding inaccuracies in the article is to stray from verifiability, then that price in my opinion is too high. Skomorokh  04:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c) "widely described as a neo-Nazi website"? "often described as a neo-Nazi website"? There seems no doubt at all that some of the contributors hold a neo-Nazi viewpoint. The site controller may or may not intend it to be neo-Nazi (my definition being the display of Nazi imagery and espousal of specific Nazi views, a la "kill the Jews"). There is a difference between white-supremacist and neo-Nazi, obscure though it may seem. Nazis killed anyone who disagreed, not just the "racially inferior". Nevertheless, there are multiple references to the site/organization being neo-Nazi, to which I could add at least one more RS. Perhaps the multiplicity of sources in support are due to Skomorokh's and my questioning of the verifiable basis above. Franamax (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't support whitewashing. This group is a neo-Nazi, racist organization as supported by RS.  Any attempts to reduce that language to something like "oh there a bunch of misunderstood punks" is not going to fly.  They are neo-Nazis so say people smarter than I.  You can claim away all you want, but weasel wording to whitewash this group is just not going to happen.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 07:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OM, it's unfortunate that you would adopt such an adversarial position. It's also unfortunate that you can so easily identify us apologists for what we are, since I'm not catching the reasons for your blanket characterisation. You've used the word "whitewash" twice, does that help you to see that your bringing a little too much emotion to this? We're trying to carefully define the terms so that they're bulletproof to anyone, not just to yourself. Franamax (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It remains that the reliable sources say Stormfront is a neo-Nazi, racist organization. Tom Harrison Talk 13:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a neo-nazi organization according to the preponderance of reliable sources. Those who don't like it being called what it is had demanded the sources in the past (perhaps becauase they think its bad for the marketting of the site).Bali ultimate (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Franamax, it's unfortunate that you would adopt such an adversarial position. It's also unfortunate that you can so easily apologize for the Neo-Nazis by weasel-wording the article.  How about you go away, and NPOV editors take care of this article.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the sources support calling this site a neo-Nazi website. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  17:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the wording of the first sentence of that paragraph should be "Stormfront is notable for the white supremacist and neo nazi views of its members"

and the "It is also a Neo-Nazi website" simply removed. The "It is also a Neo-Nazi website" just ruins the prose IMO. It's jsut a prose issue btw, nobody can claim that they aren't neo nazi.--Patton t /c 18:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Patton, I agree that there is a prose issue with the current wording, but your proposed wording is not supported by the sources we have, as far as I can tell. Skomorokh  18:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless we're mind readers, we have no clue as to the POV of Stormfront's members (sure, we can all guess as to their motives and POV, but that would be original research. We only know what the website is itself.  The implication of Patton's comments is that Stormfront is an innocent website, made up of white racist anti-semitic members.  OK, I exaggerate for effect, but come on, it's simply weasel worded nonsense.  The website is a Neo-Nazi one.  The members probably are, but unless there's some verification there, who knows? Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I think there is some room for characterising the refs as support for opinion rather than fact, I agree with the above comment. Skomorokh  19:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that such a characterisation is as synthetic or weasel-worded as you say it is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Stormfront is more of a community/forum than just Don Black's website, so the Nazism of the site is really of its members (and Black). I think that we should say the site is Neo-Nazi, but the current way of doing so isn't bulletproof. Sceptre (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral comment For the needs of everyday, spoken speech, this is indeed a neo-Nazi website (though I'd be more likely to blurt out something wholly unencyclopedic, along the lines of, "I think this website must be run by a bunch of thuggish pinheads...").


 * Now, there's a straightforward, linguistic reason why calling MySpace a social networking website is canny fit and encyclopedic: The descriptive noun has to do with function, which is to say, the pith of its content but not the outlook. If en.Wikipedia had an article about catholic.net, would it be encyclopedic and fitting to call it a Catholic website? It might be helpful to hear what editors think. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Prefacing what you say with neutral comment doesn't magically make that POV you – "thuggish pinheads" – wear on your sleeve become helpful. Calling Myspace a social networking site is not remotely controversial, nor is it analagous to calling Stormfront "Neo-Nazi"; social networking is a function, while Neo-Nazism is at best an ideological description and at worst a pejorative term. Calling a site subtitled "Catholics on the net" Catholic is practically a tautology. I don't see the point of your comment to be honest; could you clarify please? Skomorokh  01:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No need to clarify, I'm seeking the thoughts and reactions of editors spot on to what I wrote, along with what they might think about any responses which follow. Thanks for sharing yours, Skomorokh, along with anything else you might have to say. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay then, for my response I'll say that your conclusions regarding Stormfront do not logically follow from your comments about Myspace and Catholic.net. Secondly, it would be a lot more helpful if editors – especially those presenting themselves as impartial mediators – refrained from citing their personal opinions about the topic and concentrated on the improvement of this article. Regards,  Skomorokh  02:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Truth be told, you didn't answer my question, but thanks again for your thoughts. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the problem comes from the multi-faceted functionality of the modern website. The forums cannot count when we talk about what the website is. They are anarchic displays of user input, they do not represent the website owner or coordinator. One of my favorite websites is Apolyton. On it there a re forums that talk about World Cup Soccer. Does this make the site about Soccer? No, it's a Civ site, regardless of what is said in it's forums. Whereas "Neo-Nazi" is an outlook, not a function, if a person espouses or eschews that outlook we can present that label as fitting. My 2 cents says that calling yourself the New KKK falls into the realm of Neo-Nazi. Padillah (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

protected again
I've protected the page for a week, owing to renewed edit warring. Orangemarlin, it may be ok to simply let the text say the site is neo-Nazi and racist, since many sources overwhelmingly support that outlook and uncontroversially so, but it is not ok to call the good faith edits of others "whitewashing" and I don't recall anyone calling the the website "a bunch of misunderstood punks," or asking that the website be described that way. Where did that come from? How was it helpful to say this? I said a few days ago that edits should hopefully be made only by consensus, yet we have editors still edit warring instead of talking it out here. Please try again. I'll be happy to lift the protection earlier than a week from now if there is a consensus to do that. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Trying to weasel word it IS whitewashing. Sceptre is NOT a good-faith editor.  Just take a look at his block log that result from his attacks on me.  So, given he's a bad faith editor, and others have done nothing BUT whitewash this article, I'm not sure what to say other than let's stop the whitewashing.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Stormfront is not a neonazi website. It includes every form of white nationalism, from paleoconservatism to neonazism. Yes, it includes neonazi content, but it is also welcomes national conservatism, national populism, National Democracy, Fascism, Extreme Christianism, Paganism, etc. Calling it a neonazi website is too restrictive for the case. You can find many debates between neonazis and national-populists, indeed, the website includes too many factions. I suggest to explain in the article that It includes neonazi content, but not to put it as if it were just simply a neonazi group. It is by far more complex than thatEros of Fire (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The mentions you made give me the impression that the forums contain this. That's not what the article is about. I could go on the forums and start telling about Black Power, that doesn't make it a Black Power web site. The site itself has content, that is the content we are commenting on. And when the owner calls his organization the New KKK you have to entertain the notion of neo-nazi leanings. Padillah (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But the site is not made to be a neo-nazi-only forum, and if you start talking about Black Power you will not be welcomed for sure, you could be blocked, indeed. As I explained, it welcomes every form of white nationalist content, not only neo-nazi contentEros of Fire (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are different flavors of White Nationalism? From my perspective, they're all the same, hate-filled Neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, racists.  So, your nuanced argument fails to impress.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 03:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's one thing to dislike a certain group or ideology; it's another thing entirely to be willfully ignorant of it. Not all American nationalists hate Muslims, not all French nationalists are supporters of Le Pen, not all black nationalists believe white people deserve to die and not all white nationalists worship Hitler. I honestly question what you hope to add to this article with the perspective you express. Skomorokh  03:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope to keep this article neutral and prevent any attempt at whitewashing.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing reliable sources which can be cited towards building the article. Please stick to that and please, try not to use words like whitewashing which strongly hint at bad faith but otherwise have little meaning. The protection has lifted on its own. Edits to the article should be by consensus. I'm setting a one-revert rule here. Any editor who makes more than one revert to this article within (more or less) a day will very likely be blocked for edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Trying to make these neo-Nazis out to be fine gentlemen is whitewashing. One revert of a single edit right?  I mean we could be reverting vandals here.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the history of this page, saying a good faith editor has tried to describe Stormfront as hosted, run or populated by fine gentlemen, without a diff showing someone has tried to put that very phrase in the article text, is misleading to the edge of disruption and shows a woeful lack of WP:AGF. The definition of WP:Vandalism is very straightforward. Each editor will need to be very heedful and will be on their own as to whether what they're reverting beyond 1rr is vandalism, or so nettlesome and untowards to their PoV and outlook that it only "feels" like vandalism and to them, "should" be taken as vandalism, but is not. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that, let the so-called good faith editors do their job. I have long ago learned that people get bored, and I'll come back in a couple of months to clean up the mess.  I've done it to 100's of articles.  Have fun.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)