Talk:Stormfront (website)

'The new Ku Klux Klan'?

Interesting stuff, this. -- Nevard 00:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting stuff indeed, but I have to ask in light of this fatherly advice:

“ Do not you ever say, you can not say." Shake and try to stop the hand with the speech: "You know that you can not say." The father remains motionless: "Do not ever say to an American journalist, but you know that is true. ” — Il Duce Grandi Wizardi Don Black

...are machine translations from Repubblica reliable enough for our purposes?! the skomorokh 13:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I'm not even going to try and parse that by hand. Could be worth having someone who can read it fluently look over it. -- Nevard 14:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's another machine translation here. I'm having a go at finding someone who could provide some decent insight. -- Nevard 11:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And I've asked an editor fluent in the language to do a translation. "I asked them if Stormfront is not just another new Ku Klux Klan, a Klan of the 21st Century without pointed hoods and Arian symbols. "Yes, it is just like that", was the instant response. Along with Don Black, his son Dereck (age 19) is seated, who is the organizer of the radio (program) on the Internet of Stormfront. From the beginning of our encounter he listened quietely, but now interrupts his father: "You have not never said it, you can not say that". He gestured and tried to stop his father's speaking with his hand: " You know that you can't say it". The father remained immovable: " I never said that an American journalist, but you know that it is true"." Nevard (talk) 06:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite uncomfortable with including this in the article given the current state of play; your translation does not make grammatical sense in English as far as I can make out, and a misplaced conjunction could radically alter the meaning of the passage. From an encyclopaedian point of view, I would love to write that Black envisages Stormfront as the new KKK, but we can't trust this source for such an outrageous claim - what if the media picked it up from Wikipedia and it turned out to be a misunderstanding? Egg on our faces. I had a brief look around the Stormfront forums but I couldn't find anything dealing with this report specifically, although this comment casts serious doubt as to the journalistic reliability of the article we have just included. the skomorokh 15:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't ask for perfection- just wanted to check that I wasn't reading the article wrong. I think it is reasonable to believe I am not reading the article wrong, and that Dereck Black was not interrupting his father to stop him expanding on the subject of how Stormfront could not be thought of as the new KKK, and Don Black was not pointing out that he had sometimes failed to explain his pluralist view on life to the American media.

Obviously, we're not going to be mining that source for a 'typical Stormfront quote' in the lede any time soon. Nevard (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, our translation seems plausible; it sounds like something Black would say and I am reasonably sure we are not mischaracterising anyone. Skomorokh 13:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... I did have my own doubts about it, but it seems fine after a bit of consideration. Nevard (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any objection to moving the quoted section here? As long as we are agreed on the wording, it does not seem necessary or desirable to include a somewhat questionable translation in a originally-researched footnote, with all due respect and gratitude for your work on this. I have this Quixotic notion of taking this article to WP:FAC, and I'm not sure the inclusion of the translation would be favourably received there. Skomorokh 13:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll move the quotation here tomorrow barring any issues. Skomorokh 12:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Opposed, mostly at this point on the grounds i have no idea what's being proposed. Perhaps you could explain in a new thread at the bottom of this page instead of seeking consensus for something way up here?Bali ultimate (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I also oppose this until you clarify what you're proposing. If what you want to do is move the quotation from the article to the talk page, I'm definitely opposed. Also, I'm having trouble seeing how this comment "casts serious doubt as to the journalistic reliability of the article". Could you kindly explain how a Stormfront editor pissing and moaning about how the Associated Press reports on his site casts doubt on anything reported in Repubblica, in any other publication, or even in the Associated Press? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The proposal is to move the quoted translation here. This is because, though there is no objection (at least not from me or John Nevard) that the ref verifies the claim, the translation itself is original research and must be removed from the article; the reason it ought to be moved here is so that if a reader unfamiliar with Italian starts enquiring about the validity of the ref, they can see the explanation we were acting off. The Italian quotation itself does not belong in the article because it's only a click away (unlike the quotes from offline sources) and of little use to 99% of readers, but that is of much lesser importance. Hope this clarifies things somewhat, Skomorokh 21:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Is a translation original research? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It is unless it's been published by a reliable third party, no? We could take this to WP:ORN but it seems to me to be straightforward. Skomorokh 23:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Any outstanding objections to moving this? Skomorokh 23:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here it is for posterity's sake, italics added:

"Quote from Black: "Gli chiedo allora se Stormfront non sia altro che il nuovo Ku Klux Klan, il Klan del Ventunesimo Secolo senza cappucci e simboli ariani. "Sì, è così", risponde d'istinto". This translates as: "I asked him if Stormfront is not just another new Ku Klux Klan, a Klan of the 21st Century without pointed hoods and Aryan symbols. "Yes, it is just like that", was the instant response."

Further quote from Black: "Il padre resta immobile: "Non lo direi mai ad un giornalista americano, ma lo sai che è vero".". This translates as: "The father remained immovable: "I would never say that to an American journalist, but you know that it is true"."

Skomorokh 22:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Google Books URLs

On a minor note, is it a good idea to include Google Books links in the url fields of the citation templates? My understanding was that we only added URLs when a full version of the text was available. Not sure of the usability value or the copyright implications. Skomorokh 13:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

On the usability value, if the quote can be found in the snippets, the link will be useful. On the copyright issue, there is a settlement agreement in the US which has received preliminary approval by the court, which appears to resolve the copyright issues arising from Google Books snippet views. Franamax (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, very helpful. I suppose there is no compelling reason to omit them, though I suspect this might hit a stumbling block at WP:MOS or WP:CITE at some point. Skomorokh 19:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed per POV

[1] 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. --CrohnieGal^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. --CrohnieGal^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. --CrohnieGal^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)

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#Jewish_involvement). 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#Israel). 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. OrangeMarlin ^{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)

Racial/racialist and NPOV

Editors have twice[2][3] 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. OrangeMarlin ^{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, --CrohnieGal^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. --CrohnieGal^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. OrangeMarlin ^{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.

• Lantigua, John (July 27, 2008 Sunday). "Local organizer, other supremacists say Obama's run boosts their cause". Palm Beach Post. Florida: The Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. p. 1A. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Sweeney, Ken (August 3, 2008). "Mixed-race Rose contestant snubs racist websites". Sunday Tribune. Ireland: The Sunday Tribune plc. p. N03. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

• Ryan, Nick (August 12, 2004). "Life: Online: Fear and loathing: Websites expressing extreme or racist views have increased dramatically this year. Nick Ryan on plans to crack down on haters". The Guardian. London: Guardian Newspapers Limited. p. 23. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

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 ([4] and [5] vs. [6]). "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? OrangeMarlin ^{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)

Footnotes and references

These might be easier to follow and more useful to the reader if they were consolidated into one section of references. Thoughts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(great minds etc.) I think the "sources that consider" references should be treated with consistently for the "hate site" "white supremacy" and "Neo-Nazi" instances. Either we integrate them all into the References section or put them all in Footnotes as before, but the current set-up does not make sense. I prefer to leave editorial comment out of the References section, but if consensus is for it I won't object. Skomorokh 22:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this version is clearest and most useful, as it unambiguously distinguishes between direct citations and mass references with commentary. Footnotes and references are categorically different imo. Skomorokh 22:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've consolidated the two into one References section as suggested. Is everyone happy with this? Skomorokh 18:50, 29 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. OrangeMarlin ^{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^∇∆∇∆ 04:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I've moved on. Drinking a beer. OrangeMarlin ^{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)

Ray and Marsh ref

Any objections to using this study (currently in External links) as a source in the article? It looks reliable to me, and can be used to substantiate the claim that Stormfront hosts Holocaust revisionist material as well as providing info on Stormfront for Kids and the attempt by Stormfront to legitimise itself by deference to documented authority, to name just some of the topics covered. Any objections? Skomorokh 19:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, First Monday, being a peer reviewed scholarly journal published by the University of Illinois at Chicago would seem to meet our requirements for a reliable source, and if not, both Beverly Ray and George E. Marsh II seem to be credentialed experts in appropriate fields (fulfilling WP:SPS) so given the absence of any discussion, I am going to go ahead and use this as a source. Skomorokh 10:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you propose using it as a source for? Haven't read the whole thing yet, though there characterization of Stormfront's efforts and motivations is spot on. Stormfront promotes a message of "White Pride World Wide." A major purpose is the creation of a virtual community for both white extremist families and singles. The site provides direct or indirect links to a variety of extremist sites on the Internet, such as neo-Nazis, skinheads, and various Christian-identity groups that espouse racism, anti-Semitism and Christian fundamentalism. Stormfront is an Internet-based, Neo-Nazi organization."[[7]] I'll also point out that they consider it an organization, and I would have to agree. It is the shopwindow for a political movement managed by Don Black.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've used it as a source for quite a bit, actually; you can trace the citations here. Hope this helps. Skomorokh 14:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Website or organisation?

Related to this discussion, I'm wondering whether it is more accurate to call Stormfront a website/"Internet forum" as were are at present, or as a community/organisation. The sources seem split. Ray and Marsh refer to it as "an Internet-based, Neo-Nazi organization", which strikes me a step in the direction of greater accuracy than our "white supremacist, neo-Nazi Internet forum". Also to bear in mind is that Stormfront existed before it was a website. Thoughts? Skomorokh 11:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Your ownership problems with tihs article are a problem. You've just bloated the lede for the 3rd or 4th time in the past few days with Blacks self-serving justifications and stylings for his racist, white supremecist agenda. I'll leave alone for now because of 3rr but it's increasingly looking like a game; you add in crap, it gets reverted, you add in slightly different crap, and other editors get tied in knots with policy as they try to help write a neutral article, rather than one littered with a noxious point of view.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, all those citations ended up in the lede because you said the overwhelming evidence that they are in fact a neo-nazi, white supremcist, racist group were not supported by reliable sources. Now you edit them out saying they're not needed? This article is rapidly looking like it's lost GA status; i've never asked for a review on this issue, but after i figure out how it's done and wait a day or so for others to chime in, that's almost certainly what i'm going to do.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The claim that I "said the overwhelming evidence that they are in fact a neo-nazi, white supremcist, racist group were not supported by reliable sources" is not true. I have consistently supported the inclusion of the description of Stormfront as Neo-Nazi, white supremacist and racist after reliable sources were provided for each. The lead is a different issue entirely as WP:LEADCITE explains. Because no-one disputes that the claims in the lead are supported by reliable sources in the article, it is not necessary to visually clutter it with inline citations (though note that the three footnotes for white supremacist, Neo-Nazi and first hate site remain, in case a passing editor finds these non-neutral and tries to remove them in ignorance of consensus, as has happened before). Like I said to Will Beback above, I completely welcome a Good Article Reassessment and was planning to put the article up for peer review in a few days; I welcome outside scrutiny of the article. If you need help trying to get the GAR underway I can assist in the process side of things. Regards, Skomorokh 17:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Bali, I am trying to accommodate your edits and keep the article improving; the article incorporates your quote from the ADL[8], and USA Today[9], the lede segment referring to multiculturalism and race wars that you objected to are no longer there[10], the lede now describes the organisations as racist rather than racialist as you wanted[11], I let your removal of the tags I added to the SPLC ref questioning whether it called Stormfront a "Neo-Nazi website" stand, even though it does not, because I am not interested in edit-warring[12], I removed the "sub-fora" wording you wanted gone[13] and used "topics" instead[14], left out the bit about Black and "defending the white race" as you wished[15] and the criticism of the documentary from the lede[16]. I'm completely willing to discuss all of my edits and believe that the article is better off as a result of our back and forth, and hope you will continue editing it in a collegial manner. Sincerely, Skomorokh 17:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Skomorokh, can I suggest you not edit the page for a few days? Others can look at what's there and deal with any concerns, and maybe the article will stabilize at a consensus version. If nothing else, we can all do something else for a day or two and things will cool off. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the page not being edited for a while (and have just suggested that the article might be full-protected so that we can work out the individual issues and come to consensus). How does that sound? Skomorokh 18:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you manipulated the process to get the page locked in your preferred version, then disingenuously presented this as a generous accommodation. Live and learn, I guess. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I presented nothing as a "generous accommodation"; I suggested it as a solution to the content disputes, because editors were unwilling to discuss their proposed improvements on this talkpage. Tom, I am an editor in good standing. Been here over two years, never been blocked, never been involved in an Arbitration case or RFC/U, and managed to contribute plenty of Good and Featured content without having my editorial integrity called into question. My fairness, trustworthiness and good faith have been besmirched here; I don't particularly mind as long as the article gets written professionally and neutrally. But it's is not productive to attack the editor rather than focus on the edits; drop it. Skomorokh 19:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want to be called on tactics like that, don't engage in them. If you don't want to know what I think, don't ask. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair point: I'm more interested in hearing what you really think that not having uncharitable things said about me. I maintain that I don't use "tactics" to "win" discussions, but we will have to agree to differ on that for now. Skomorokh 20:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Images

Anyone got any ideas for images to add to the article? At the moment we only have three, two of which are copyrighted. I was considering an image of Jefferson/Jesus/Darwin/MLK for the "Tactics" section, but seeing as an editor took umbrage at an image of Bill O'Reilly being included in the Controversies section, I thought I would ask here for suggestions instead. What do you think? Skomorokh 17:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a picture book and doesn't have to have pictures decorating every article. I am often told that I have a poor imagination, but I cannot imagine an encyclopedic use for any of the four images being included. If we had a free image of the founder of the website or any important people involved, incorporating those photos would be fine, but having a photo of someone merely because they are mentioned on the website or have mentioned the website isn't really appropriate. It isn't as big of an issue from a BLP standpoint for MLK or Darwin - they are dead and lived in pre-internet times so nobody skimming the article would ever incorrectly infer that they are a supporter of the website and even if they did, there's no libel there. But it still would look out of place from an editorial standpoint. --B (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with that. It's a pity we don't have an image of Black. Do you think we could get a screenshot of the homepage for the infobox at least though? Skomorokh 19:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A picture of Adolph Hitler making a Nazi salute would seem to me to be the most appropriate image possible.72.11.124.226 (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"One of the earliest and continually published websites"

B has removed this claim in this edit. Although it is supported by a reliable source, I don't really think the claim adds much value to the article, and it's accuracy is disputed (There could be some confusion between the 1990 and 1995 origin dates though). I agree with B that we are better off without it. Thoughts? Skomorokh 18:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The World Wide Web did not even exist until 1992. In 1990, Al Gore hadn't invented it yet and so there were zero websites at that time. The site owner may have run a racist organization or Bulletin board system (the article says bulletin board right now, so that's an amusing alternate possibility) but there was no website. The claim that it was one of the "earliest" websites is almost certainly merely other sources reprinting the website's own propaganda without fact checking it under the assumption that they wouldn't make it up. --B (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that is concerning. Internet history is not one of my areas of expertise I'm afraid, so thanks for catching that. Are there any other claims in the article that look like regurgitated propaganda? Skomorokh 19:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I remember thinking in early 1995 or so when my dad first got internet access and the browser that eventually became Internet Explorer (I forget the name now) on his 80486 at his work, "this is too slow to be useful to anyone and will never last". I guess I missed that one slightly. ;) --B (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hah! At least our flurry of edits here was good for something :) Skomorokh 19:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

B, that would have been Spry Mosaic. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Summary of the ideology section

The summary in the lede of the ideology section was removed in this edit. Does another editor want to have a go at summarizing it? The whole article needs to be summarized per WP:UNDUE/WP:LEDE. Gracias, Skomorokh 18:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's how the section reads, minus citations and links:

Stormfront presents itself as engaged in a struggle for unity, identifying culture, speech and free association as its core concerns, though members of Stormfront are especially passionate about racial purity. It promotes a lone wolf mentality, linking to white nationalist theorist Louis Beam's influential work on leaderless resistance and offering a sympathetic assessment of Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, a white supremacist who committed suicide after a racially-motivated killing spree in June 1999. Scholar Violet Jones notes that Stormfront—like organizations such as Minuteman Project and the Military Order of the Stars and Bars—credits its mission to the founding myth of an America "created, built, and ideologically grounded by the descendants of white Europeans." Asked in 2008 by an interviewer for Italian newspaper la Repubblica whether Stormfront was a twenty-first century version of the Ku Klux Klan without the iconography, Black responded affirmatively, though noting that he would never say so to an American journalist.

Ideally, we could find a way of summarizing this in one sentence a line or two long. I'd argue that the Smith mention and Louis Beam do not need to be summarised, as they are only there to illustrate the point that Stormfront "promotes a lone wolf mentality". Similarly, The Minutemen Project and the Military Order of the Stars and Bars can be omitted, as they are only there as an aside rather than as a crucial point. Violet Jones is not important to be mentioned in a summary of Stormfront, nor is the fact that Black's statement about the KKK was published in la Republlica. That leaves us with the following factoids:

• Stormfront presents itself as engaged in a struggle for unity
• Stormfront identifies culture, speech and free association as its core concerns
• Stormfront members are especially passionate about racial purity
• Stormfront promotes a lone wolf mentality
• Stormfront credits its mission to the founding myth of an America created, built and ideologically grounded by the descendants of white Europeans
• Don Black sees Stormfront as a twenty-first century version of the Ku Klux Klan without the iconography

I don't think this could all be summarized in one sentence, but the KKK bit is arguably important enough to get its own sentence (which would wrap the lead section up nicely). That would leave us with five factoids; I'd be happy with any two or three of them going in, though I'm particularly partial to the Violet Jones analysis, which seems the least likely candidate for "self-promotion" by Stormfront. Thoughts? Skomorokh 20:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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.[17] 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)

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 [[18]] 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:

The Aryan Nations uses the American Declaration of Independence for justification and imitates it in its Aryan Declaration of Independence (http://www.nidlink.com/~aryanvic/declar.html). A list of grievances about the current federal government, akin to those about the British monarchy, is offered as justification for this call to action against the federal government. Another example of this technique is a reference to Samuel Adams' speech at the Philadelphia State House, made on 1 August 1776 (Stormfront, 14 August 2000, p. 1) on Stormfront's main page. The following excerpt is offered in an effort to legitimize Stormfront's agenda:

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." (Stormfront, 14 August 2000, p. 1).

This quotation is taken out of context and used in conjunction with other quotations from notable Americans including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. The quotation suggests a natural ally for a group professing to offer its resources to "those courageous men and women fighting to preserve their White Western culture, ideals, and freedom of speech and association... ." (Stormfront, 14 August 2000, p. 1).

Stormfront's Web site offers numerous quotations from famous Western politicians and philosophers. Each quotation is an anachronism.

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)

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)

Content to add from The Racist Next Door article

It strikes me that this article is underused at present. The following are statements concerning Stormfront that I found interesting and would like to include in the article, if there is consensus to do so:

1. "Black spends most of his time maintaining Stormfront."
2. "Vocal critics … routinely recite the evils of Stormfront, arguing that the smart presentation and politically correct language veils the racism and threatens unsuspecting children."
3. "… Black's spectrum of links (connections to other Websites) that deny the Holocaust, propound "scientific" racism and revolutionary violence, a graphics library that includes an array of Nazi images from S.S. emblems to swastikas, and the myriad pseudointellectual racist essays." [it would be nice to get a link to scientific racism into the article]

Any comments/objections/suggestions? Skomorokh 21:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I changed them to numbers so we can refer to them easier (hope that's OK). I see no point in mentioning #1 without something to contrast it to. To mention that he spends more time maintaining the site than "doing something else" is informative. To say he spends a lot of time maintaining the site doesn't tell me anything. Or if that was to be used as a counterpoint that I may be missing (I'm new to this article), then OK.

(2) I think is a great addition.

(3) is again, mentioning something with no counterpoint that I can see. It even reads like an incomplete sentence "Black's list of links and pictures..." and then doesn't go anywhere. Is there a counterpoint I'm not seeing? Padillah (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in and helpfully numbering things :) Regarding (1), our article currently contains the line "Operating the site from its West Palm Beach, Florida headquarters is Black's full time job, and he is assisted by his son and 40 moderators"; I'd like to slip the claim that he spends most of his time maintaining Stormfront in there somewhere. Similarly, we claim that "Stormfront.org is comprehensive and frequently updated, hosting files from and links to a number of white nationalist and white racist websites". By using (3), we can go into detail about what kinds of sites these are, instead of just telling the reader their ideology. (3) is a sentence fragment, you are correct, the full sentence can be read at the article here. Hope this helps, Skomorokh 22:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Any outstanding issues with including the three statements? Skomorokh 21:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will add these in the next few days. Skomorokh 03:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere on the page, we should rely less on self-description, not more. The article as it is now spends too much time articulating the site's views. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally agree that the views of Don Black are overrepresented in the article (though per NPOV we ought to give them as much weight as the reliable sources cited do, which for some reason is a lot). But I don't see any self-description in the above quotes; could you clarify what specifically you object to here? Skomorokh 20:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add some of this to the article; does anyone have an opinion on the merits of that, or substantiation of the claim that it involves self-description by Stormfront? Skomorokh 23:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"...substantiation of the claim that it involves self-description by Stormfront?" You mean the quotes cited to http://www.stormfront.org/dblack/racist_021998.htm? Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

An article written by David Schwab Abel and published in the Miami New Times (ref), neither of whom have any affiliation to Stormfront whatsoever, constitutes "self-description" on Stormfront's part because they host a copy on their website?! I'm sorry, I'm not following your point at all here... Skomorokh 17:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And when the site uses those quotes to describe itself - that's self-description. Padillah (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm proposing that we take sentences written by the journalist from the newspaper article and put it in the article. What does Stormfront's opinion of itself have to do with that? Where does Stormfront use the quotes to describe itself anyway? I don't see them self-identifying as evil, racist, and child-threatening. The idea that using content from this article is overly favourable to Stormfront is not credible when Black calls it "arguably the most malicious article I've ever had written about me". Skomorokh 17:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for barging in, this is only to remind. Self-description is ok if it's straightforwardly called self-description and cited back to a reasonable, verifiable, believable source, like the website. The pith here would be WP:UNDO: The website is notable not for its self-description, but for what independent sources have to say about it, hence those independent sources should be thoroughly covered and moreover, if the PoVs among those sources aren't the same (even if they're all taken as negative), each reliably sourced PoV should be dealt with, along with any self-description. Put another way (and this, I think, would be true of an article about any org or website), it's the lack of weight, from the very sources which make a topic notable, taken with too much self description, which would make a text read like an "advertisement" or worse. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh, It depends exactly what you are citing and exactly what you say. Citing the Miami newspaper is not a problem in itself. If that's used, we should just cite (and independently verify the content of) that article as a news article. We cannot of course assume that anything Stormfront.org hosts is an accurate or legitimate copy, so there's no point in linking to them or relying on them for references. It remains that the article is already overweighted with self-description and articluations of Black's views. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I intend to cite the three claims listed above (rewording them slightly to avoid plagiarism), none of which contain self-descriptions of Black's views, but rather portay the subject in an unflattering light. I don't have a problem with removing the link to Stormfront in the citation, as Wikipedia reader probably ought not to be subjected to Black's prologue. It's is quite unlikely that Black has distorted the article; it appears identical to the version hosted here I uncovered through Google. Skomorokh 18:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

To follow up and to be clear, no website is ever a reliable source for copies of independent commentary about itself or the org which runs it: If citations to such copies are challenged, they can be removed with no further ado. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your last claim, but no-one is claiming that Stormfront has misrepresented this article, and it would appear that they would be wrong to do so. Now that we have a primary source for the article, I don't see why we can't just replace the Stormfront link with it and disregard Stormfront's thoughts on the issue. Skomorokh 18:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they'd be wrong to assert the racial superiority of white people too. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to browardpalmbeach.com as a source. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:12, 12 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:

• Marmura, Stephen (2008-04-28). Hegemony in the Digital Age: The Arab/Israeli Conflict Online. Lexington Books. p. 184. ISBN 0739117726.

• Lehman, Peter (2006-07-25). Pornography: Film And Culture. Rutgers University Press. p. 272. ISBN 0813538718. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• Everett, Anna (2007-12-01). Learning Race and Ethnicity: Youth and Digital Media. The MIT Press. p. 200. ISBN 0262550679.

• Thussu, Daya (2003-06-02). War and the Media: Reporting Conflict 24/7. Sage Publications Ltd. p. 266. ISBN 0761943137. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• Nacos, Brigitte L. (2007-04-28). Mass-Mediated Terrorism: The Central Role of the Media in Terrorism and Counterterrorism (2 ed.). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. p. 264. ISBN 0742553809.

• Friedman, James (2002-05). Reality Squared: Televisual Discourse on the Real. Rutgers University Press. p. 336. ISBN 0813529883. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

• Dowd, Nancy E. (2005-12-21). Handbook of Children, Culture, and Violence. Sage Publications, Inc. p. 536. ISBN 1412913691. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• Durham, Martin (2007-12-11). White Rage: Extreme Right and American Politics (1 ed.). Routledge. p. 180. ISBN 0415362334.

• Borgeson, Kevin (2008-09-05). Terrorism in America (1 ed.). Jones & Bartlett Publishers. p. 150. ISBN 0763755249. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

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)

• "PublicEye.org - Winter 2008 - Rebranding Fascism". Retrieved 2008-12-31. Additionally, as an identity within the White Nationalist scene, National-Anarchists continue to attract a number of followers in the United States. For example, one of the early collaborators of the Oregon-based magazine Green Anarchy affiliated with their perspective. U.S. National-Anarchists also frequently enter into discussions on Stormfront, the main internet gathering place for White Nationalists. There they defend their racial-separatist and antisemitic credentials to traditional fascists, many of whom look upon Third Position politics with skepticism, if not outright hostility. Apparently hearing White Nationalists promoting Islamist, Communist, and anarchist thinkers is as difficult for some of the Right to digest as it is for the Left.

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 - Bonisteel, Steven (March 16, 2000, Thursday). "HUD Steps Up Foray Into War Against Online Racism". Newsbytes. Post-Newsweek Business Information, Inc. The Alpha.org Web site is still mothballed, but domain-name hosting for the address is still provided in part by Florida-based Stormfront.org, a Web site operated by a Don Black - a man once jailed for his role in plotting to overthrow the Caribbean island of Dominica to use as a white homeland. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Thomas, Douglas (2000-06-08). Cybercrime: Security and Surveillance in the Information Age (1 ed.). Routledge. ISBN 0415213266. In Pennsylvania, state attorneys brought a successful civil action, requesting injunctive and other equitable relief, against Stormfront and Alpha HQ, its service provider. To lessen the possibility that Stormfront might argue that they were being made martyrs of, the action was brought against everybody along the chain, back to the service provider. On their site Stormfront had identified, by name and photographs, a local human relations council (the Reading-Berks Human Relations Council) and one of its staff members, stating that she was a race traitor and should beware.
  • "Court exempts NSI from policing domains - CNET News". Retrieved 2008-12-31. The Webmaster and ISP hosting Alpha.org, however, were not let off the hook. Last February a court in Berks County, Pennsylvania, found that Alpha HQ, company founder Ryan Wilson, and service provider Stormfront had engaged in ethnic intimidation and harassment for their part in hosting the site. 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)

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)

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 Bali ultimate (talk · contribs) at least might not accept this.[19][20] 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,^[a] neo-Nazi^[b] and as the Internet's first major hate site,^[c] 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)

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. 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)

Mass-mediated terrorism ref

Regarding this edit by Tom harrison (talk · contribs), the book does discuss Stormfront on page 114, as this link should show:[21]. Skomorokh 17:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh, so it does. But not here [22]. 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 D-Notice (talk · contribs) 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)

Wikipedia: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)

Tag the article as a warning to readers?

Hello, sorry I haven't had much time to devote to the discussion here in the last day or so, (recovering from over-exuberant welcoming of 2009 and reviewing student papers are unsurprisingly uncomplimentary), but it's good to see no major edits are being made without consensus. One thought that struck me is that our readers probably ought to be warned of the content disputes by means of header tags. At the very least, an {{npov}} tag should be added to reflect the concerns of the above discussions, I think. {{ActiveDiscuss}} might be a helpful addition also. Regards, Skomorokh 03:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Will add. Enigma msg 04:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Are there any specific statements in the article someone is disputing at this point? Skomorokh 22:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"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. OrangeMarlin ^{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. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the sources support calling this site a neo-Nazi website. --CrohnieGal^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?OrangeMarlin ^{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. OrangeMarlin ^{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. OrangeMarlin ^{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. OrangeMarlin ^{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. OrangeMarlin ^{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. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:14, 11 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)

Evolution/Darwin/Science segment

I can't say I understand this edit by Orangemarlin; the edit summary reads " Let's be accurate. This age-old argument made popular by Ben Stein fails on so many levels" but I don't know the intended referent. The relevant portion of the reference cited (Beverley and Marsh) reads:

Scientific ideas, particularly Darwinian evolutionary theory, are used as a justification for many of the ideas promoted by the groups, in particular the National Alliance, Stormfront, and Aryan Nations. Like the Nazis before them, they rely upon a blend of science, ignorance, and mythology to prop up their arguments.

Note that Stormfront is one of "the groups" in question. I freely admit that Darwinism may be a less than ideal target for "Darwinian evolutionary theory", but I don't see where in the source the claim that Stormfront corrupts science is stated; this does not seem to be a neutral reflection of the source. Can someone fill me in on what the "Ben Stein" reference is supposed to mean and how this edit is an improvement? Gracias, Skomorokh 23:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a reference to Expelled: No intelligence allowed which is a propaganda film that compares scientists and those against young Earth creationism/ID/whatever to Nazis. I support OMs edit as it is clear misuse, and the reference compares the misuse to that of the Nazis. Verbal chat 17:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. The source says that Stormfront "uses" science "as a justification for" its ideas, and "[relies] upon a blend of science, ignorance and mythology" to support its arguments. The blend comment is already used as a quote in the article, so I am guessing that the "Corruption of scientific theories, evolutionary theory in particular, are used to support its ideas" claim in our article is drawn from the "Scientific ideas, particularly Darwinian evolutionary theory, are used as a justification for many of the ideas promoted by the groups" claim in the source. If that is the case, I do not see how that "corruption" is a neutral synonym for "use". Skomorokh 20:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Modern evolutionary theory does not support claims of white people's genetic superiority. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance; the source is not attributing to Stormfront a belief in genetic superiority. Skomorokh 21:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's being proposed here. But i agree with Tom's comment immediately above mine, and it certainly should be the case that we explain that they "misuse" or "corrupt" or "blend science with ignorance and bias in an attempt to gloss their racism with a pseudo-scientific veneer."Bali ultimate (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The question is how to neutrally reflect the viewpoint expressed by the reliable source without bias. The claim of corruption is not supported by this source, as far as I can see (though if anyone knows of another source that does support this claim, by all means come forward with it). To interpret 'uses scienctific theories to support its ideas' as 'corrupts scientific theories to support its ideas' does not seem neutral. Skomorokh 21:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Since science does not in fact support stormfront's claims, the existing language is fine as far as content goes. Some stylistic changes may be in order at some point. Separately, "how to neutrally reflect the viewpoint expressed by the reliable source without bias" suggests somehow neutralizing the sources. This misunderstands what neutrality is and how we get there. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is claiming science supports Stormfront's claims? Which claims are you referring to? Which source? Even if it were verifiable that "science" does not support some claims of Stormfront, that would not logically imply that corruption is involved. Scientific consensus is not on the side of the Flat Earthers, but that does not make them guilty of corruption. WP:NPOV means representing viewpoints fairly and without bias, not neutralising them; I don't think our current wording represents the viewpoints of Beverley and Marsh fairly because they don't accuse Stormfront of corruption. Skomorokh 21:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Science does not support Stromfront's claims about the racial superiority of white people, as I think I said above. Are you asking for a source that claims of white racial superiority are bunk? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Text like "misuse" or "corrupt" or "blend science with ignorance and bias in an attempt to gloss their racism with a pseudo-scientific veneer" is very ok if it's wrapped in quotes and straightforwardly cited word-for-word as a quote to a reliable source which has commented on the website's content. It's not in any way ok but rather, original research, if an editor has paraphrased or otherwise spun a cited source. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't want to get in the position of trying to write the article by stringing together quotations with a footnote after each. Sources must necessarily be accurately and completely summarized. The text we have now does that, I think. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If the controversy and dispute are strong enough, any paraphrase can indeed be removed as unsupported original research. "Stringing quotes" can always be handled with deft editorial and writing skill and is not a worry. There is nothing untowards about citing every sentence if need be. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Among reliable sources, there seems to be no significant controversy or dispute about Stormfront. The concern here is an extensive rewrite that has had the effect of slanting the article to be less unfavorable to Stormfront than the collective sources support. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about the controversy and dispute on this talk page. If paraphrases are disputed, they can be removed as original research, if only because the wording could indeed be cite spanning or the drawing/spinning of an original conclusion. You can argue that editor consensus might trump this, but quotes are always more reliable than paraphrases. If the only way to settle the article into an echo of the reliable sources, with fitting weight applied, is through quotes, then quotes it must be. To say again, the esthetics can be handled through writing craft. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I understand your position and I'll think about it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a given, this topic is no fun to deal with :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking?

Hopefully this is a less contentious issue. I think there are a number of links that add little value, per Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Thoughts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm usually guilty of this; no objections if someone wants to remove some of the blue. Skomorokh 22:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality, GA criteria and the lead section

In case you are not already aware, this article is undergoing a Good Article Reassessment here; the assessor has criticised the manner in which the subject is introduced and asks that editors supporting this characterisation be directed to reassessment page. Thanks, Skomorokh 22:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)