Talk:Stormfront (website)

Suggestion

Perhaps it would be worth mentioning that a high number of Stormfront users come from decidedly "non-white" countries.

According to Stormfront's ALEXA page ([1]), as of Feb. 18, 2009 Stormfront is ranked:

3,948 in Bangladesh 21,158 in Mexico 22,077 in Pakistan 23,102 in Japan 33,183 in Indonesia 40,778 in India

The above countries contribute a combined 9.1% of all Stormfront users worldwide.

Have there been any reliable sources commenting on why this is so? Are there really tons of Bengalis who support white supremacy? Or maybe there is another explanation (like Americans or Europeans "onion routing" their internet connections through these countries, possibly to hide their true identities like spammers do?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.104.234 (talk • contribs) 13:15, February 21, 2009 (UTC)

Alexa counts visitors to websites, not users of websites. These numbers don't necessarily mean anything. --Geniac (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess that at least some of those consider themselves white or white sympathizers. Mexico in particular has an entrenched ethnic divide between those of indigenous, "white"/Spanish, and mestizo heritage. I haven't seen any commentary on this topic in the reliable sources cited, but if you find some let us know. Skomorokh 18:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds too much like original research to me. Also, relevancy. Beganlocal (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Geniac, Alexa tracks visitors of a website; in other words, the people on their computers who type "stormfront.org" That means not a single thing, because there are numerous reasons why people visit the site. Statistically speaking, only a very small percentage of people who visit Stormfront subscribe to it and its beliefs, which is why there is a huge discrepancy between the number of "active users", "users", and "guests/visitors." --Rock8591 17:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)

Supremacy

Simple question: Why is that Stormfront is described as a "white supremacist" website on wikipedia when the Stormfront FAQ (http://www.stormfront.org/whitenat.htm) makes it very clear that is not the case?

Q. Do White Nationalists feel they are superior to other races?

A. No. The desire of White Nationalists to form their own nation has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority.

Even a quick post to their Opposing Views section asking "Do you believe whites are superior to other races?" will show that the majority of white nationalists do not believe in such nonsense. I saw that there is a long list of references for that particular claim, but if it is a patently untrue statement does it really matter how many sources support it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsw (talk • contribs) 18:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a long-standing dispute over the terms "white nationalist" and "white supremacist". So far as I can tell, putting it roughly, "white nationalist" is the term used by those sympathetic to the movement while "white supremacist" is used by those opposed to it. Other than that, they refer to the same movement/ideology. To give an imaginary example, suppose some element of the Mafia described themselves as an "Italian heritage society" even though outsiders caled them a criminal gang. In that case, would we be limited to using the term they use for themselves? Of course not. But we should mention that term too. If we have good sources that use terms besides "white supremacist" then we should reflect those usages in the text of the article too.   Will Beback  talk  18:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that the official Stormfront FAQ is a good reference for terms besides "white supremacist?" Also, I disagree that "white supremacist" and "white nationalist" are referring to the same ideology. "Supremacy" implies a belief that whites are genetically predisposed to be a ruling class among all other races (so Hinduism would be white supremacy) whereas "Nationalism" describes a desire to separate from other races on a national level which inherently implies a certain level of equality. Thank you for the thoughtful and fair response. 69.138.153.225 (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have heard that distinction offered before, but in actual fact the two terms are applied to the same people and concepts. It's just that one is preferred by proponents and the other by opponents. As for the Stormfront FAQ, it would be an appropriate primary source for the views of the management, but in general primary sources are only used under certain circumstances.   Will Beback  talk  20:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Using Stormfront FAQ as a reference is horrible by all means. By that logic, then a person on trial who pleads innocent is actually 100% innocent and is sure to be not guilty. --Rock8591 19:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Will Beback. Quick browse over their forums shows the true views of the community there as well as that the distinction between "white supremacist" and "white nationalist" is purely political, masterminded to attract a wider participation. DR2006kl (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As a followup to that remark; just as it is slander and libel to call someone a white supremacist when they are not, it is equally false to say that someone is not a white supremacist when they actually are. Good thinking, and good logic DR. --Rock8591 22:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Those arguments are total nonsense. The terms 'white supremacy' and 'white nationalism' mean different things and that they are misused by the evidently biased editors of this article does not change that.

You should do some reading before you make up your mind.

I will make it clear (and no this is not a matter of opinion): That white nationalists want white nations for them selves(on sound reasoning I will have you know) does not mean they think themselves superior or supreme. Now some may feel that the nations which Europeans build more appealing than the nations of say South America or Africa or the Middle East but that is a separate issue.

You are unfairly characterizing white nationalism. It is as I said, the terms are not interchangeable despite the declarations of the biased contributers above. And no, that they are used interchangeably by ignorant people is irrelevant.86.42.245.13 (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of us, including me, have done more than enough reading than the average Stormfront user, about SF, and have had frequently browsed the site before. Moreover, this article is about SF itself, not "white nationalism vs. white supremacism." It is true that SF refers to themselves as white nationalist; however, white supremacist is a more accurate description. Rock8591 (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Minutemen

I would like to know why the Minutemen are included under such a hateful section. I understand the powerful influence of some who would attach a lot of the Minutemen's rhetoric to such groups as they oppose; but the ideological foundation of the Minuteman is *not* racial purity, but a discussion on the allowance (or disallowance) of immigration of the illegal variety.

Please remove or restructure this section in its entirety, "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."[37] " Failing that, please qualify the statement in accordance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flashoverride (talk • contribs) 11:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It'd be good to see a quote from the page referenced. I've had trouble finding reference to the Order of the Stars and Bars as a racist organisation, though Ms. Jones seems to see many organisations connected to the civil war (including reenactors) as tools of white (male, Christian, capitalist) power. The passing reference to Stormfront doesn't seem particularly important as part of the piece. Nevard (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[http://books.google.com/books?id=tY_2Ob3_gRQC&pg=PP1&dq=reinventing+critical+pedagogy "...organizations like the Minutemen, the Military Order of Stars and Bars, and Stormfront.org credit their mission to the myth of an America created, built and ideologically grounded by white people of European descent. Although the Minutemen carefully avoid using racist discourse in the publicity, the latter two organizations are proudly white supremacist." Page 39 of the linked edition. I don't see the problem with using this; personal disagreement of editors with what the sources say, is, as we have been through time and time again, not enough to justify removing it.  Skomorokh  07:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, what actually makes this relevant to the article? I mean, looking at the other articles in the book, it looks great- if you're an educator who wants to use revolutionary mathematics to fight the power. It's hardly a work of history, or even sociology. Nevard (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, the "founding myth of an America "created, built, and ideologically grounded by the descendants of white Europeans."" section is rather offensive. This isn't Romus and Remus stuff- the Founding Fathers were, in fact, European, whatever some irrelevant sociologist may think. Nevard (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Founding Fathers didn't "build" America themselves, though, they (mostly) relied on African slave labor to do so. So Ms. Jones has a point. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No ISP?

A small semantic change which i can't be bothered to work out how to word in the article is the use of the term internet service provider (ISP). the article says they don't rely on an internet service provider as they have their own servers. More accurately it means that the don't reply on an ISP for -hosting- but almost certainly do for a connection to the internet itself. 202.176.0.252 (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Simple - we change it to reflect the fact that they don't rely on a web hosting service. Beganlocal (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Racist video games.

I refer to the following article content in the "Services" section which I removed as unsourced:

and the Stormfront for Kids section of the website hosts a link to "White Power Doom", a downloadable white power computer game that allows children the opportunity to hunt and kill Jews and black people.

The sources given do not link the computer game in question with SF, and I am unable to download the game from stormfront dot org. I propose that this material is removed as there are no citations which directly connect the existence of the game with SF. If anyone can find a cite which does, please include it.

Beganlocal (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"Tactics"

I would suggest that this is an inappropriate characterisation. Yes, if we use the definition of tactics as something along the lines of an action taken to achieve an objective, then yes stormfront has tactics. However, so does wikipedia and almost every other organisation. The article here clearly shows that the purpose of stormfront is to advance a bigoted and racist agenda. We do not need section headings like "tactics" to bring this home.

Its a POV term. Wikipedians are encouraged to be bold and make changes to improve articles in line with policy and common sense. One should not require to seek consensus before changing or removing such a term. It is important to ensure consensus (or lack of overt opposition) before making more substantive changes, but removing weasel words, peacock terms, and non neutral language should always be permitted.

On the issue of MLK.org. Yes, they made a website. Yes they attempt to discredit MLK. Yes, it has been suggested that their website is misleading. It is not in order to say that they attempt to hide that the site is operated by a racist group. The ABC cite doesn't say it. The website prominently displays stormfront hosting on the front page. Suggesting anything else without a cite claiming the website disguises its publisher is original research.

Beganlocal (talk) 10:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't meet WP:AVOID and there is nothing wrong with the word tactics. I suggest we follow what the sources say. Also, being bold is fine unless someone challenges you. Then WP:BRD applies. Verbal chat 10:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Re BRD you are correct. Lets discuss.

I object to the phrase "while hiding the fact that the website is operated by a racist group." I think the nature of the website can be understood without this sentence. Hiding implies a deliberate intent which it is inappropriate for us to infer as it is not in the primary sources. Aside from this the website itself makes the stormfront link clear - however there is an argument for removing the sentence- unsourced - without resorting to OR by checking if the page does in fact "hide" anything.

Whether the section should be headed "Tactics" is another matter. I suggest we talk around that point some more, perhaps with reference to conventions (if any) which may apply, and what people consider to be common sense.

Beganlocal (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, you are incorrect about WP:BRD your challenge is weak, and WP:BURDEN applies. I agree with Beganlocal's argument. I don't think the source said that Stormfront was hiding the fact it operates martinlutherking.org, I agree the site discredits King. If the site is misleading and given that stormfront is a major site it should be easy to find a reliable source saying how the site is misleading. Then when this happens a quote should be provided from this source, or if it is paraphrased the source should directly support the statement included.

On the topic of "TACTICS" originally it was a heading for POV and OR, much of which I deleted. There is a quote talking about how Stormfront uses pseudoscience etc, and that's NPOV because it is quoted and referenced. Saying that starting Martin Luther King is a tactical move implies that it is not a truthful site, that is not for you to say. If the site is untruthful then by all means find a reliable soruce to support that position.Goramon (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Stormfront prohibiting violent threats etc

I see why certain editors want to edit the line about Stormfront prohibiting this and that, when such a policy seems like a PR exercise and may not be genuinely enforced. However, you can say the same thing about nations. I live in Australia and assaults are prohibited here, but there are many fights/assaults and little police enforcement or investigation. This doesn't prove that assault isn't prohibited in Australia. That's a side note, my real point is that if you want to include a quote about the skepticism that some reliable sources have about the enforcement of the policy, then fine quote them. Even if the source isn't reliable but notable, a quote will usually allow for inclusion. Many wikipedians, and more often than not admins, think that if an article deals with politically incorrect topics they have free reign to violate WP:NPOV, and reverse WP:BURDEN in order to attack the politically incorrect viewpoint. This may as well become policy if policy is to reflect common practice. However, the spirit of the project is that the more controversial the topic, the more core policies should be adhered to.Goramon (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the above that justifies the removal of information sourced to an WP:RS, and replacing it with WP:SELFPUB material from the group themselves. Verbal chat 10:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB policy seems to actually specifically allow for this type of claim "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is not unduly self-serving etc" what we have to determine is whether it's unduly self serving. I don't know, afiak there isn't a good source put in for this information.

As for the WP:RS "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". So as per WP:Burden"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material .... The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article.". WP:ASF states "It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution".[3] A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is.".

So simply I would like you to meet the burden of evidence, by including a quote from this book "Pornograph : film and culture" and attributing the views to the author of the book rather than to a mass attribution in the text of the article.Goramon (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The claim is contested by an non-selfpub RS, which therefore has precedence over the "everything is fine" self-pub claim. Verbal chat 11:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

So now you are trying to argue about what is true? That's not your role WP:NOTTRUTH. Just follow WP:ASF and all will be fine. I don't have a problem with that book being used a source, I just want a quote and not a mass attribution and no weasel words in the section about stormfront policy. What i would actually like is a sentence referenced to a stormfront policy page saying "Stormfront has a stated policy of ....blah blah" that's more neutral imho. Unless somebody else thinks saying "stated" is implying that i'm passing judgment on the reliability of the source.Goramon (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

We have a well-sourced claim. It is reliably sourced. It can't be removed simply because the people in question claim otherwise. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't have a well sourced claim. I don't know what the book said, but the sentence in wikipedia is a mass attribution. Also it's not being removed because Stormfront claim otherwise or because it's not true (may or may not be), it's being removed because it's not meeting the burden of proof and is not properly credited in the text. I would have no objection to a properly written sentence using that source. However, I don't have that book so I can't go and write it properly. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material .... The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article. Goramon (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic. The sentence is attributed to the people in question. There's no issue here. The sentence more than meets WP:V. You can't just assume that the sentence doesn't fit what you want because you don't like it. I don't have a copy of the book either and you know what? It doesn't matter. The editor who added the sentence in did, and we can rely on that person having read the text as we always do for books. Please stop trying to whitewash this article. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is the sentence "However, others say that only blatant hate and calls for violence are kept off the opening page" and it's referenced to a page in a book. What's wrong with it?

1. It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution".[3] A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. from WP:ASF

2. "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made" I don't know what the book actually said. If i was confident that the sentence was an accidental mass attribution I would rewrite it "Peter Lehman wrote that only blatant hate and calls for violence are kept off the opening page." or something similar, but I can't write that because I don't have the source and it may say something different.

3. JoshuaZ your argument that "I don't have a copy of the book either and you know what? It doesn't matter. The editor who added the sentence in did, and we can rely on that person having read the text as we always do for books." is not supported by WP:BURDEN where "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." That means the burden of proof is on you every time you restore an edit, you can't simply rely on a previous editor who you assume read the book and made a supported edit.

In closing, I'm not trying to whitewash anything. I would attribute this sentence to the author if I had the source but I can't because I wouldn't know if my new edit would be "unambiguously supported" by the source without reading it, and neither could you.Goramon (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The WP:RS provided meets the WP:V and burden requirements. Verbal chat 12:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

fail. Completely didn't address the mass attribution and difficulty in fixing the sentence without having the book. WP:BURDEN absolutely applies.Goramon (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

They are available on google books. Did you even try looking for the books? I've just read them and they support the text. Verbal chat 12:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof isn't on me. I just read the pages available from Google books "Cyborgs in Cyberspace" and there was no mention of Stormfront whatsoever on pages 163 - 167 (with pages 164, 165, and 167 missing). Page 221 of pornography film and culture wasn't online (if the book even goes up to page 221). My skepticism looks even more justified than I had imagined.Goramon (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In Reality Squared, Stormfront is mentioned on every page between 163 and 167.[2] Stormfront is mentioned in page 221 of Pornography: Film and Culture.[3] Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, as I said I just read it. Verbal chat 13:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nishkid64. Does the text quoted unambiguously support the text in the article? Does the text tell us how large this group of "others" is?Goramon (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)