Jump to content

Talk:Stormfront (website)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stick to the Facts (talk | contribs) at 19:10, 15 September 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconPolitics Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Since no such page exists on Stormfront holding the beliefs cited, I am removing the text until someone wishes to link to them.


I notice that from time to time editors, usually anonymous, come through and delete mentions of Stormfront being a neo-nazi group. Other editors may not be interested in researching the truth of that assertion, so I'll list here some references that I've come across. In general, it should be noted that even if Don Black does not call Stormfront a neo-nazi site, an objective look at it shows that it is operated as one.

  • directory of "National Socialist Graphics including logos and eagles." [1]
  • directories of articles about "Zionism and Judaism: Information on the Jews and their impact on our society." and "Revisionist materials of interest to those pursuing the truth about the alleged German war crimes during WWII." [2]
  • Usernames such as: "STURMFUHRER", "Landsturm", " Europa Fuer Immer", " AryanNationsOhio", "sunshinestate88", and other names that refer to neo-nazi concepts and heroes.
  • user avatars, such as one of a picture of Hitler saluting. [3]

In short, there is plenty of evidence that Stormfront caters to neo-nazis. -Willmcw 23:18, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since when does the German language imply Nazism? Many non-Nazi left wing groups oppose Zionism. Revisionism is a pursuit independent of neo-Nazis. Few if any members of the StormFront community call themselves neo-Nazis. One user with a Hitler avatar is not just cause to label the community as a neo-Nazi group. You are referring just to the message board. If we are to use the examples above why not include the those who oppose White Nationalist beliefs,or the Asian Nationalist board members. The fact is the majority of the message board members call themselves White Nationalists.
They've got swastikas in the sysop-controlled directories. They've got people saying "I'm a nazi." Taken together, there is pleny of evidence that the site intentionally caters to neo-nazis. I don't know how you can assert that the majority of users call themselves White Nationalists in preference to neo-nazis. Can you give a citation for that? -Willmcw 16:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is correct to state that it "caters to". And it's not claimed anywhere on stormfront.org that it is some kind of antifascist or politically correct website. Generally Nazis, skinheads etc are accepted as fully privileged posters, if they can obey the guidelines. On the other hand, the forum not only allows anti-nazi comments and arguments, but such views are often expressed by many moderators, assuming the critique is done from White Nationalist perspective. Most common lines include warmongering, subordinate role of racialism to imperial ambitions, unsystematic and cynically pragmatic tailoring of the ideology on the fly and mass slaughter of White people. Many posters are also vehemently opposed to any trace of socialism, including in National Socialism. So it is incorrect to say SF is a Nazi site. Revisionism (aka denial), anti-zionism and, well, anti-semitism probably would be more legit accusations, though not without controversy as well --Poison sf 07:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen very few if any call themselves Nazi on that site. Can you give a citation for people calling themselves Nazi? The following is a quote from the main page on the website; "..........Stormfront first went online as a dial-up bulletin board in 1990 and has been on the Web since March 1995, becoming the first White Nationalist website..........." This combined with posts with titles such as "Why I am White Nationalist" and member names such as "A WHITE NATIONALIST" is pretty good evidence that Stormfront is a White Nationalist community.

I've already pointed out that the Sysop has a directory full of swastikas. The fact that he also calls it a White nationalist site is fine too. We can also use both terms. You, or another anonymous editor, said that a majority of user are only white nationalists, not neo-nazis. I'm stillwaiting for a citation for that. In this [poll, 52% of Stormfront users responded to the question, "should we display the swastika?" by answering either "yes" or "depends". Just use the search function. There's a thread in which many members insist they are not "Nazis", they are "National Socialists" instead. Fine, though to the rest of the world "National Socialist" = "Nazi". Anyway, if swastikas, anti-Jewish rants, admiring profiles of Hitler, and so on are not sufficient to make it a neo-nazi site, then what is? What is your definition of a neo-nazi site? (PS, if you're going to make controversial edits you ought to get a username - it'll give you more credibility.) -Willmcw 06:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

52% of of "yes" and "maybe" on wether or not to display the swastika do not prove that it is a neo-Nazi website, and that was not 52% of members but 52% of the 159 memebers that voted on that [poll. So a total of maybe 46 people on a forum that has 41,210 members voted that they should display the Nazi flag. I am still waiting for your citations the prove that enough members identify themselves as neo-Nazi to warrant using that term. I have seen only anecdotal evidence from you. You are also mistaking the White Nationalist movement with specific political beliefs. The White Nationalists on that forum have varying political beliefs that range from capitalism to marxism. National Socialism is just one of the many political beliefs on that forum. The only thing that the community as a whole has in common is there belief in White Nationalism.

Fine. So we don't have to call it a neo-nazi website. In general, I don't think that Wikipedia should apply labels to people that they wouldn't use for themselves. But it is also true that this particular White National website also has lots of National Socialist members and resources. While the term may be inaccurate and prejudicial, most people would apply the "neo-nazi" label to 21st Century National Socialists. But, this article does not have to, so long as it is accurate and verifiable. -Willmcw 00:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I will agree to the article's current form. It seems that you and I are the only editors with an interest in this article, so it would be pointless to wait and see what anyone eles thinks. I did make one small change. I changed the part that mentioned 'Holocaust denial articles' to 'Holocaust revisionism articles'. The only other thing I see that maybe wrong with this article is the links section. The links provided seem 'slanted'. I will find more links to add to the links section. -TheManWithNoName

That is gracious, TMWNM. If you'll consent to leave the National Socialist members sentence I will remove the supporting references. I don't think the article needs to contain actual thread titles, so long as we agree on the nature of the website. The denial/revision change is fine by me, but lets see if the info needs to be included at all. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Having viewed the site, I am not convinced by the anoonomous comments above. There may be different sorts of white nationalist members of the forum, but there is cleasly a national socialist sympathy in the editorial of the site. The use of the german language is not evidence of this but the speicific words used and Gothic text isn't something used by all white nationaist it is specific to National Socialist heritage. Even the word "Stormfront" is suggestive of this.
Addtionally the there is clearly holcaust revisionism which is not objective (i.e. which takes any exageration or perjorative zionist revision to mean that we can dismiss the common viw held on the time) A specific example is the use of evidence that camps were for convictted criminals and policitical deviants and the possible existence of some Jews in Berlin as late as 1945 (fair enough) while ignoring the fact that lots of non politically alligned Jews including children were rounded up, and the fact that many of the exemptions (such as ex Jewish who had servedin the military) were eventually scrapped. Many white nationals accept Jes as white, the rejection is more of a National Socialist one or one that has been adopted from them by white groups wanting some sort of affinity with Nazis.
Criticizing a sample as not being representative of a whole group because it isn't the whole group also flies in the face of statistical theory. I don't know how accurate the specific sample above is but you get my point.Dainamo 18:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stormfront is ran by people who definitely sympathize with neo-nazis and the nazis. There interpretation of history and constant association of non-whites to crime and immorality. They clearly want non-whites deported from their lands and treated like animals. Rarely, are non-whites ever acknowledged as positive. They depict whites as inherently superior to non-whites and Jews by pointing out, or making up stories of crime. The biggest difference between Stormfront and the Nazis is that Stormfront is much more inclusive in their definition of "Aryan". English, Irish, French, Russian, and German are all considered white by Stormfront's standards. Nazis believe Germans were superior to all. the Nazis and Stormfront's ideaologies are very similiar and many WNs are inspired by Hitler. DaBomb 17:12, 31 May, 2005

One comment...

The depiction of a swastika does not automatically connotate a racist/Neo-Nazi/white-supremacist agenda or worldview. The swastika is being gradually reclaimed by its proper owners, the Asatruar, and also being cleansed of its taint from being misappropriated by the Third Reich of Germany.

Other than that: glad to see this page here. Stormfront needs to be shut down, and advertising what they really are is good work.

  • You are right, it doesnt, but Stormfront features no semblance of anything having to do with the Asatruar or any other traditional religious movement (i.e. that isnt somehow connected to estoric Hitlerism or other forms of Nazi-mysticism) that may use the swastika. -CunningLinguist 02:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The depiction of a swastika does not automatically connotate a racist/Neo-Nazi/white-supremacist agenda or worldview. "

True, but Stormfront hardly strikes me as a Buddhist or Hindu website. In the context in which Stormfront utilises it (and considering the type of swastika in use), the connotation is clearly Nazi or neo-nazi.AndyL 00:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

White supremacist forum? Stormfront does not support that. Read the site rules and posts. unsigned comment by user:24.107.210.90
Sure, let's check out some posts, shall we?
I gave Stormfront the benefit of the doubt. While I don't sympathize with racial separatism in the least (I'm of mixed ancestry myself, and engaged to a girl with Norwegian and Native American heritage), I also don't think "white pride" is in an of itself a racist concept (surely if one can be proud of being black, then one can be proud of being white). But scan the board for any lenght of time, and you'll notice a trend: It's less about "loving the white race" and a whole lot more about "hating everyone else".
"We don't hate anybody, we just love our own kind" my ass.--RicardoC 18:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They really do change their presentation of their beliefs whenever they are suited to the argument. When you're talking about them saying that blacks are inferior it's "oh, we just want to be separated, we don't hate blacks or think they're inferior" but when you ask them why that is, they state that blacks are, as a race, criminals and idiots. The whole site is a practice in hypocrisy. VetteDude 03:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's somewhat in the eye of the beholder. One comes to the site with expectations and an agenda to "unearth racial hate" or whatever, one gets just that. If I had an agenda I could "discover" hate of Whites againt Whites on the site, there're occasionally some fierce conflicts and fights... so what. Some threads on the list are quite notorious on stormfront itself and considered low brow and embarassing by many posters, myself included. Say, wikipedia thread was especially gross. Of course, it is ridiculous bullcrap to claim that "we don't hate anybody". All humans are quite hateful beings and I doubt there're many who can honestly say this. We consider "hate" a slanderous and absurd simplification in many contexts, that's all. The point is, a great number of stormfront posters does bring up black IQ gap, criminal levels etc. I guess it is undeniable that a very significant part, possibly a majority, kinda looks down on specifically the black race. But also it's not uncommon to see references to studies that claim very high average intelligence of Jews and Asians. So, is stormfront asian or jewish supremacist site now? Also not uncommon is rhetoric along these lines: "objective superiority is non-existant in nature, but whites are better suited for modern Western type societies than blacks". The issue that would really decide acceptance of a poster as a WN on stormfront is opposition to racial mixing and multiracial society. Theoretically one may preach even "inferiority" of Whites to some other races on stormfront, I believe. One could possibly encounter opposition, because it's not what many people want/like to hear. But ultimately it is the opposition to mixing and multiracialism that is the defining common ground at SF (Not to say that SF does not include some stereotypical supremacist posters). --Poison sf 07:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Two quick comments on that monstrosity of a paragraph (I guess racial superiority doesn't include the gift of proper composition):

All humans are quite hateful beings and I doubt there're many who can honestly say this.

Sounds like a justification, not a rebuttal.

But also it's not uncommon to see references to studies that claim very high average intelligence of Jews and Asians. So, is stormfront asian or jewish supremacist site now?

Well, let's once again look at the forum, shall we?

On Jewish intelligence:
"Look at the Askhenazi Jews, who are probably the "smartest" people in the world, and constantly score higher than even Asians in these tests. But it appears to be a different kind of intelligence. Analytical rather than creative. Half the chess world champions are Jews, and many, many Nobel prize winners in physics and such. But the great artists, inventors, explorers and conquerors are all white. The Jews' big brains are seemingly best constructed for plotting and scheming."

Of course, you may argue that these are individual views and not representative of the organization, which is what the article is about. But these individual views are allowed by the moderators (at least one of whom often refers to those who engage him in debate as "juden" and "jew-boy". Stormfront.org is a white supremacist organization. Actual member/mod behavior trumps a weasely disclaimer.--RicardoC 20:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Uh oh. I'm not a good writer, that's for sure, and often too long-winded. But I've no choice but to address some outrageous mistakes you got there. I'll try to do my best :-/.
Not only it contains some miserably faulty logic, it calls stormfront what it is NOT - an organization. It's in no way an "organization", it's a discussion forum. It does serve as a platform for discussions & coordination of both intra and inter-organizational activities. For some countries, there're key activists/leaders posting regularly. For others, any potential SF-related activism is in the infancy/non-existant stage (or maybe just a few low rank members from standalone orgs posting).
Now, the logic in "-ist views are allowed by moderators, therefore it is -ist forum" is a pure fallacy. Excuse me, allowing -ist views means just that - forum is catering to or "tolerant" (nice word, eh?) of -ist views. Say, some leftist forum may allow openly gay people post their views. Even I, despite disliking gays, would not call the forum as a whole a "gay forum" because of it. It is invalid description, labelling. Same with say an "anti-racist" forum, where Marxists can be (and often are) significant faction.
"Juden" and "jew-boy" name-calling, inspected objectively, indicates contempt, bad blood, perhaps, but not "supremacism" (even the N-word is not necessary indicative of supremacism, it's indicative of rudeness at most). The quote your provided (chess champions etc) may or may not be called supremacist. IMO it's ambiguous. I'm in doubt about validity of facts mentioned there, perhaps it can be disputed. Anyway, who said analytical intelligence is inferior to creativity. Controversial, but, most importantly, (yeah, you guessed it) an individual view.
Stormfront "ideology" is an umbrella type of ideology. There're in fact relatively few things agreed on unanimously. The common denominator platform is linked to in the external links section of the article, and is called "White nationalism" internally. Nothing more is "required" or enforced. Assuming one accepts that (including, among post important points, opposition to miscegenation and multiracialism), one can argue in favour of superiority, inferiority, "equality" (equal but separate), whatever, ideally within the bounds of proper behaviour.
Definitely, Stormfront is NOT a politically correct forum where anybody will put any effort into censoring some -isms possibly seen as enraging by PC bigots. The only -isms not allowed are -isms contradicting the basic platform, including forms of politically correct supremacism practiced by some corporations ("let's bring in those miserable bastards to work for slave wages to cut costs"). People considering themselves "superior", but endorsing non-white immigration for, say, material reasons can and will be banished to opponent section. This alone proves that "supremacism" per se is not the "primary" viewpoint, but allowed in the "acceptable range" as long as it intersects with/does not contradict "White nationalism".
So, of course, anybody can unearth some material qualifying for "supremacism" with ease. Just as well, some material can be unearthed, referring to general mass of White people as neurotic, insecure, delusionary, lacking in pride, brainwashed, stupidly bowing to any whim of "minorities", unable to recognize & push collective interests when everybody around (including negroes) does it etc etc. Such sentiments are expressed in too many threads to mention, one named "[south] Korea seeks the Best, Canada gets the rest" by Paul Fromm comes to mind. Among all else, it contained some positive references to the wit of this technically advanced and educated nation, compliments to their immigration policy (including deporations of White illegal aliens) and bitter condemnation of vastly inferiour Canadian policies. It was just an especially striking, well written and memorable example, that gathered nothing but approval, and the sentiment is commonplace.
And inferiority, as one may call it, of Whites today in such departments as "group cohesion" and dominant political orientation is something unlikely to be disputed on SF... one of the few really commonplace opinions in fact. With standarts as lax as as yours, I wonder if you would call Stormfront a "White inferiorist" forum because of it. It's about as legit as "supremacist" label. In reality it is racialist, politically incorrect, White nationalist (dedicated to studying and developing the ideology of "White nationalism") discussion board --Poison sf 13:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Uh oh. I'm not a good writer, that's for sure, and often too long-winded. But I've no choice but to address some outrageous mistakes you got there. I'll try to do my best :-/.
Not only it contains some miserably faulty logic, it calls stormfront what it is NOT - an organization. It's in no way an "organization", it's a discussion forum. It does serve as a platform for discussions & coordination of both intra and inter-organizational activities. For some countries, there're key activists/leaders posting regularly. For others, any potential SF-related activism is in the infancy/non-existant stage (or maybe just a few low rank members from standalone orgs posting).
If "organization" bothers you so much, feel free to replace it with "entity".
Now, the logic in "-ist views are allowed by moderators, therefore it is -ist forum" is a pure fallacy.
Wrong. When the forum rules prohibiting the use of racial slurs are broken not only by regular members, but by members of the moderating staff, it reflects on the organization. Sorry, the entity ;-)
Excuse me, allowing -ist views means just that - forum is catering to or "tolerant" (nice word, eh?) of -ist views. Say, some leftist forum may allow openly gay people post their views. Even I, despite disliking gays, would not call the forum as a whole a "gay forum" because of it. It is invalid description, labelling.
Wrong again. Stormfront violates its own rules by allowing the posting of racial slurs, yet has no problem enforcing the rules restricting the posting of dissenting views. It's not merely catering, it's endorsing. If the rules were applied evenly, I might be more inclined to believe "the entity" really does try to separate itself from the more radical elements in its community. But it doesn't, so I don't.
Same with say an "anti-racist" forum, where Marxists can be (and often are) significant faction.
Consarnit, those darn commies invented anti-racism! I should have known! Well, that's it! I'm racist now, that'll teach them! ;-)
"Juden" and "jew-boy" name-calling, inspected objectively, indicates contempt, bad blood, perhaps, but not "supremacism" (even the N-word is not necessary indicative of supremacism, it's indicative of rudeness at most). The quote your provided (chess champions etc) may or may not be called supremacist. IMO it's ambiguous. I'm in doubt about validity of facts mentioned there, perhaps it can be disputed. Anyway, who said analytical intelligence is inferior to creativity. :::::Controversial, but, most importantly, (yeah, you guessed it) an individual view.
Translation: "Well gee, man... It's HATEFUL, not SUPREMACIST!"
Should I take your words to mean that you'd be more comfortable if I ceased referring to Stormfront as a "white supremacist group" and switched to simply "hate :::::group"?
Stormfront "ideology" is an umbrella type of ideology. There're in fact relatively few things agreed on unanimously. The common denominator platform is linked to in the external links section of the article, and is called "White nationalism" internally. Nothing more is "required" or enforced. Assuming one accepts that (including, among post important points, opposition to miscegenation and multiracialism), one can argue in favour of superiority, inferiority, "equality" (equal but separate), whatever, ideally within the bounds of proper behaviour.
That sounds lovely. However, as I've repeatedly demonstrated, Stormfront doesn't obey its own rules.
Definitely, Stormfront is NOT a politically correct forum where anybody will put any effort into censoring some -isms possibly seen as enraging by PC bigots. The only -isms not allowed are -isms contradicting the basic platform, including forms of politically correct supremacism practiced by some corporations ("let's bring in those :miserable bastards to work for slave wages to cut costs"). People considering themselves "superior", but endorsing non-white immigration for, say, material reasons can and will be banished to opponent section. This alone proves that "supremacism" per se is not the "primary" viewpoint, but allowed in the "acceptable range" as long as it intersects with/does not contradict "White nationalism".
Wrong, yet again. The very first "guideline for posting", posted by Don Black himself:
"No profanity. Avoid racial epithets."
So, of course, anybody can unearth some material qualifying for "supremacism" with ease. Just as well, some material can be unearthed, referring to general mass of White people as neurotic, insecure, delusionary, lacking in pride, brainwashed, stupidly bowing to any whim of "minorities", unable to recognize & push collective interests when everybody around (including negroes) does it etc etc. Such sentiments are expressed in too many threads to mention, one named "[south] Korea seeks the Best, Canada gets the rest" by Paul Fromm comes to mind. Among all else, it contained some positive references to the wit of this technically advanced and educated nation, compliments to their immigration policy (including deporations of White illegal aliens) and bitter condemnation of vastly inferiour Canadian policies. It was just an especially striking, well written and memorable example, that gathered nothing but approval, and the sentiment is commonplace.
You keep losing sight of the issue: That piece by Fromm, and the reactions it garnered, are not in contradiction of the rules set forth by "the entity" itself. The only type of rule-breaking that gets a pass involves the attacks on non-white races/ethnic groups. This is a position supported by the Stormfront administration, which makes its leanings quite plain to see.
And inferiority, as one may call it, of Whites today in such departments as "group cohesion" and dominant political orientation is something unlikely to be disputed on SF... one of the few really commonplace opinions in fact. With standarts as lax as as yours, I wonder if you would call Stormfront a "White inferiorist" forum because of it. It's about as legit as "supremacist" label. In reality it is racialist, politically incorrect, White nationalist (dedicated to studying and developing the ideology of "White nationalism") discussion board
...In which the only breakable rule concerns racial attacks on non-whites.--RicardoC 20:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You drag too many questions in the discussion. As it was made clear on SF many times, SF has "guidelines", not "rules". The latter, as opposed to the former, would be too difficult to formulate. Guidelines set forth the "ideal" and it's left to moderators discretion to decide everything else. The highest priority deciding heuristic is "whether this helps the site and the movement". It's your right to dislike such policy, you may propose somehow clarifying it in the article in NPOV way. I don't consider it really THAT notable, nor SF really THAT important to warrant such details and technicalities on wikipedia, but I wouldn't much object either.
You create confusion by shifting the accent from whether SF is supremacist (an important question which influences what descriptions are appropriate in the article and which I'm thus interested to discuss) to breaking the rules and your personal woes with management of SF board, about which I don't care much.
Now, to clarify certain points. First on Marxism. I'm not really getting wisecracks in your response, my point basically was that White supremacism to Stormfront is what Marxism is to any anti-racist site. I.e. a noticeable subgroup even by unabashed self-identification, definitely some traceable ties as far as "philosophical" foundations go, but not enough for labeling in either case. Such labeling is propagandistic technique, not an encyclopedical approach.
On your remark about "hate site": It's good that you move to something technically less outlandish than "supremacist site"; I suggest "hate" subject is not touched in this branch any more so that discussion doesn't turn into absolute mess. Though I've things to say about "hate" too. BTW as you may have noticed, I added a paragraph that mentions "hate group" in the article earlier. So I'm in no way opposed to any usage of the "hate" tag. But I'm not really interested in how YOU want to call Stormfront personally. If you have some comments about "hate" or "hatefullness" that (you think) are important to the process of making the article better, I suggest you [+] a new discussion here maybe I'll throw in a comment or two. Let's concentrate on main direction of this discussion here, that is the supremacism tag.
A bit more on the breaking of the rules (more accurately the guidelines). The very reason why they had been introduced is that it was decided, allowing people to indulge in mindless name calling is not good for the board; on the other hand, it's good for the board to encourage something less low brow. Because of it, such guideline was introduced. Technically it's not enforced as a hard "rule". It was never considered an objective for the board to be a PC place catering to the touchy feely outsiders. As long as other objectives are satisfied (like not allowing the board to turn into namecalling fest), one can get away with it once in a while. After all, damn it, some consider even relatively neutral color-descriptions like "black" offensive and demand some idiotic newspeak like "afro-american". What's next? It's not an objective of SF to obey any whim of political correctness and newspeak.
And, while I'm at it, I don't even see "juden" and "jew-boy" as really that much of a slur. First is translation, second sounds more like a familiarity for me. I don't take "white-boy" as a big slur, though certainly it's not a sign of respect either. And you're technically wrong in saying that non-white related namecalling is the only one present. Whitey, honky, cracker, white-boy, this all can be spotted. Of course, mostly in context of citations or sarcasm or something, but it is present. How's that for breaking "rules"?
Thsi all has nothing to do with "supremacism". It can be seen as a breach of political correctness and YES, politically incorrect speech for Whites (exclusively) was made the "treshhold" of "hate" (for others the treshhold is much higher, even racially motivated violence sometimes doesn't pass it), at least within politically correct newspeak that is exactly what is called (White) "hate" very often.
Same with profanity BTW. It's not a coincedence both come related in guidelines. Racial epithets & profanity are considered degrading the quality of the board, but SF is not a church gathering, so the latter may occasionally fly too. Another similar case is "must be related to White Nationalism" guideline (not rule). Technically it's another one breached very often, so you're again incorrect in your claims.
Bottom line: even if you would be 100% correct, technically what you describe is called double standarts in applying the rules, to White and, especially, White nationalist posters and to non-whites/opponents. But this has nothing to do with White supremacism. It is a fact that double standarts exist, although I believe in some cases you exaggerate. But in general I don't deny it. "Stormfront moderators have different standarts for the insiders and opposing outsiders" - this is something as obvious and expected by default that it doesn't come as any kind of surprise. Or does it? Stormfront does not claim to be something like Wikipedia. It represents one POV and, just like in any other such place, opponents (non-whites are by default opponents, naturally, with very few exceptions), especially when coming in rude & opinionated, will get name-called. You can't complain. Just for an experiment, try to repost some WN article/opinion from Stormfront on the net and see what you get in response. In fact, relatively(!), in this department Stormfront is about as good as it gets in 90% of cases (well maybe losing to wikipedia). I've not yet seen ONE case when somebody came in as extremely polite & without taunts, gave his informed & factual opinion and then got called something nasty. But if one is rude, it doesn't help if he's not a "juden". A rude White opponent will be called some names too, possibly much worse than a "jew-boy". Proves nothing at all.
I think that most important points I've shown proving SF is NOT a "supremacist" website still stand. You did not and, I guess, can not refute it (naturally, because SF is not a supremacist forum). The arguments I've provided are much more important than speculations on how moderators (do not fully) enforce the "racial slurs" guideline. It's great of course that you're concerned with fairness of SF moderators, and perhaps I would even advocate taking a stronger position on this issue on SF... not before some name-calling is lifted from White nationalists though and opponents become more polite and fair too, in general. But you've too find something more substantial for supremacism allegations. For any other topics, as I already suggested, start new branch(es), or the text is going to get ugly here.
Oh, one more thing spotted. You're correct in saying that Stormfront is not trying (or not trying hard enough) to "separate from more radical elements". It's not a "reeducation camp" for say supremacists or nazis or something. "Less radical elements" (who include many moderators) are free to argue rationally with radicals that's all. I wouldn't even claim that White nationalism necessarily is or tries to be "less radical" than "white supremacism". It's simply a different thing, but, depending on the particular situation, it may even be the other way around. Say, as I already pointed out, it is possible to be a person believing in White superiority (over blacks or whoever), but feeling comfortable with the general direction the society is going. Say, a social darwinist version of supremacism ("we're superior, as such it's beneficial to have & increase the numbers of inferiors we can dominate in our country"). Such a person may or may not oppose, say, affirmative action exclusively, but not multiracialism/race mixing per se. Real life examples were spotted in opponent section. Although they may be called "supremacists", since SF is NOT a "supremacist" board, such people are treated as opponents. In this situation, a genuine White nationalist will in fact be by any standarts more radical than (this particular type of) supremacist. So it's not necessarily about radicalism.--Poison sf 21:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Any group that is as strongly pro-Nazi/Neo-Nazi as Stormfront has a presumption of being white supremacist. The content of the postings does nothing to dispel that. A claim that they are not is interesting, but not definitive. -Willmcw 22:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Pro-Nazi" thing is puzzling. Is there some objective criteria? Is dichotomy "either pro or strongly anti Nazi" assumed? What I consider fixed is that Stormfront is a website that refuses to censor Neo-Nazis or prohibit Neo-Nazi imagery in avatars etc. This is a fact. Also views on the personalities and activities of the 3rd Reich in the range from slightly less negative than mainstream to openly sympathetic are allowed (counter-arguments to this are also allowed and actually given, sometimes by moderators). Comments that the moderator staff & the admin occasionally add to modern neo-nazi related discussions are, from my experience, more often than not negative/critical to some degree, as of something immature, goofy or even provocational.
I'm getting a little frustrated with where the argument is going. I've already given my thoughts on why WN & WS groups/ideologies do intersect but are not identical (illustrating by some hypothetical & real-life cases) and why it is exactly WN that is most accurately for description of what SF is. [Note: it's in fact more to have an alternative viewpoint presented on this page than to somehow try and succeed at removing all mentions of supremacism from the actual article page; I do understand that media references alone make that impossible]. Now I don't want to waste time on something as vague as "pro-Nazi" (just Neo-Nazi is vague enough), dubious heuristic "pro-Nazi (vague as it is) implies White-supremacist" and proving SF is not pro-Nazi. I guess I could try to argue SF is not Neo-Nazi, but pro- is something far too vague. At the very least some clarificatin is required. Say, SF is a self-declared pro-White site, and especially sympathetic & (ideally) inclusive to any racialist Whites who subscribe to core objectives. Neo-nazies are a subset of (racially thinking) Whites, so in a way, yeah, SF IS pro-Nazi. Also, in certain situations, most SF members would choose Nazi leadership as a lesser evil, I guess, even those who normally would argue with neo-nazis on some important points. But generally consensus among privileged & prominent users is slighly or not so slightly critical of neo-nazism. I wonder what this nominal degree of "pro-Nazism" may indicate.
I believe if you inspect this objectively, you'll have to conclude supremacism/nazism to SF is what something between "communism" (at least) and general "leftism" (at most) is to anti-racist/"anti-fascist" forum, not more. Also, to SF "pro-Nazi" applies to the same or comparable degree as "pro-Christian", "pro-Pagan", "pro-Confederate", "pro-democratic" and some other such "pro-something".--Poison sf 04:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We've already gone over the neo-nazi thing. See the discussion at the top of this page. -Willmcw 06:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think I already commented there too, before. Basically same analogy with Marxism/Communism is appropriate with nazism also. Anti-racist forum with a noticeable subgroup espousing Marxist views and sporting Communist symbols in avatars etc doesn't mean it's accurate to describe the forum as "Marxist forum". It's properly called "anti-racist" forum. Do you agree or no? For the opposite to be true, IMO this hypothetical anti-racist forum would have to strongly endorse Marxism/Communism, for example by censoring open opposition & critique. Formally or informally declare Marxism essential and defining part of its ideology, something like this.
The problem with "pro-Nazism" you refer to is that nothing I'm aware of speaks in favour of "pro-Nazism", any more than secured by self-declared "pro-Whiteness" & general strategy of not demanding from participants more then a minimal common ground (summarized in manifesto). --Poison sf 23:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My tuppence

I'm a SF member and I'd like to add a few things.

First, on the thread linked by Willmcw above

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=156380

the poll asking whether "we" should use the swastika, no votes outnumbered yes votes by a couple of percentage points. Try and be more honest in the future Willmcw.

Second, (I'm responding again to Willmcw's comments above) Stormfront is not an organization, it is a message board.

Third, I suggest to anyone who is willing to buy into Willmcw's characterizations that he investigate for himself. Sure, SFers are far more sympathetic to Nazism than the general public, but it is far from a settled issue among SFers or WNs. I have flamed Nazis and their use of NSDAP symbology myself many, many times on SF. I basically take no prisoners on the matter. Just review the top posters via the members link (you can sort the list in various ways, I suggest post count or reputation) http://www.stormfront.org/forum/memberlist.php?&order=ASC&sort=joindate&pp=30 to see how many NDSAP avatars there are. They are present, but in no way dominant.

Frankly, I could care less about the epithet of "Nazi." The word holds no power over me (it's absurd as I prefer American Constitutional Republicanism over all other forms of government). On the other hand, I would like people to figure things out for themselves first hand, rather than rely on word of mouth.

Based on the website that is run by Alex Linder, a new article has just been created that talks about VNN. I thought that many of the editors who work with this article would be interested in looking into Vanguard News Network.--Gramaic 2 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)


since when did the definition of a "neo nazi" website be a website that isnt hindu or bhuddist?!?!?

National Vanguard News

Someone has added this site in the external links section. Is it correct to have this site listed in this article? Does it even have anything to do with Stormfront? --Gramaic | Talk 05:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The Stormfront talk page was moved, with all contents, to Stormfront (website) when this was made a disambiguation page. Please do NOT revert this without discussion below because I have already gone through and fixed all links that were on regular Wiki pages and you will break those links. If you disagree with what I did feel free to discuss below -- I am open to others' ideas.

Why the Disambiguation Page was Created

I have requested that Stormfront be moved to Stormfront (online site) and that what is now Stormfront (disambiguation) become Stormfront. This would make it so that someone who typed Stormfront in the search box would first come to the disambiguation page and choose among the four meanings; currently they come to the hate group site but are informed that other meanings exist.

Rationale:

1. There are multiple legitimate meanings for the word, all used with regularity, enough so that each produces hundreds of thousands of hits on the web. When I Google each term I get these hits:

  • Stormfront and white: 394,000
  • Stormfront and game: 230,000
  • Stormfront/Storm front and Joel: 1,154,000
  • Stormfront/Storm front and rain: 5,424,000

This meets one of the key Wikipedia standards for a disambiguation page being the default page.

2. No guilt by association: Billy Joel's album title, for example, should not be a notation in the opening of an article about a racist hate group, since his presence in the hate group article links him to them, however coincidentally. The fact that Joel comes from a Jewish family that was forced to flee the Nazis makes "routing" the reference to his album through the stormfront.org all the more inappropriate.

The same consideration applies for Stormfront Studios, a video game design company, which took the name as a weather-based mataphor before stormfront.org came to prominence.

3. Although the Billy Joel album is spelled as two words, storm front and stormfront are often used (and accepted) as variant spellings by native speakers of English.

4. Taking the default meaning of the English word and assigning it to stormfront.org is in fact giving the hate site a prominence it does not deserve, and actually serves the people who promote it. Listing it as one of the meanings of the word seems better balanced.

Thanks for considering this, and my apologies for initiating this in the wrong way by copying the page. I commit to fixing the remaining links (I already did the 30 or so that were not talk pages or Wiki admin archives) once the move is made.Coll7 05:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

If you move the article, use the move function, don't just copy and paste the contents, so the article would preserve the page history. Also, the Billy Joel is "Storm Front", not "Stormfront", so, we're not talking about the same word. bogdan | Talk 03:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move made to Stormfront (online site) and Stormfront made a disambiguation page. Please comment here with any concerns, suggestions, etc. Coll7 00:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Search Engines

Has anyone noticed a Scientology tactic? I get unexpected results when say looking for a Scottish Gaelic phrase to this site. For the record I have been extremely surprised and impressed by the intelligence of posters to this site when googling Parsis (and reading out of curiousity their views on anthropology and racialism), etc., but their premise is skewed IMHO - though I am ultimately confused by the various ideologies. Anyway, the Ancient Egyptians were mulattos, et cetera ad infinituum! Was their civilization not superior? Obligitory opinion out of the way, seriously, what's up with the search engine tactic? Khirad 12:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Their argument on the issue of any nonwhite civilization is that you cannot prove a white was not behind those advances. I see it now! A white dude from Germany snuck down to Arabia to invent algebra then humbly let the Arabs take credit for it... VetteDude 03:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The webmaster of the stormfront.org website was a wikipedian. Awhile back I became aware of it. I am registered user but to make this post I logged out cleared my cache to make myself anon. When I became aware of it I removed the fact that I am Jewish from my user page because I did not want my user name, which is my name and email name, to be posted on that website. It made me feel bad to do that. Wikipedia never me feel bad before, it was in my humble opinion the best of the web. I was watching CDVF tonight and the vote on an admin request brought it all back. That user who was blocked knows all about proxies and of course he is still around as a sockpuppet. I would change my user name but then I would be a sockpuppet too and lose all my edits so I will just continue on as I am but not 100% comfortable.

one more time: white supremacism and white nationalism

Wikipedia has an article named White nationalism. What can be more natural than linking Stormfront to that article in the very first sentence, by accurately stating that Stormfront is a White nationalist site? What makes you think, and I ask the user Gramaic in particular, that White nationalism, with its own specific wikipedia article, is not more suited in the first sentence about the self-desbribed White nationalist website than White supremacism? Isn't it POVish? Or do you have proof that the Stormfront is more properly described by White supremacism article than the White nationalism one? It is wrong to claim SF has absolutely no ties to White supremacism, but it is not the same thing. The very presence of a separate White nationalism article proves this. The WN article DOES mention notable critique in NPOV way:

Critics, however, argue that white nationalism intersects with, or is a euphemism for, white supremacy.

I tried to make a NPOV compromise, mentioning White supremacism classification by watchdog groups. It wasn't intented as final but rather as a step to making it more NPOV. Probably my note could use some refining, but it got reverted without even some kind of explanation. What's the problem?--Poison sf 18:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, does it fall on deaf ears? One more time: Wikipedia got White supremacism and White nationalism articles. I could maybe understand usage of White supremacism if there was no White nationalism article. But there is. Stormfront is a self-described White nationalist website. What is the reason of not using the reference to more specific notion, with its own Wikipedia article, but rather to a less specific notion, that does in fact partially intersect with White nationalism, but this notable critique is present in the White nationalism article. So it's not like some crucial information is lost. This can and is properly discussed in White nationalism article, in NPOV way. What is the ground for using less specific (at best), but more likely slanderous and inappropriate term? Especially in such context - first sentence? According to whom is it an appropriate usage, without even openly showing the POV (either as I suggested earlier - watchdog groups - or in some other way)? --Poison sf 20:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Poison, we don't allow these groups to self-describe. If most published sources call them white supremacists, and they do, that's what we do too. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing. First let me ask a question: who we and what groups in particular? Is there a consistent, non discriminatory policy for such cases? Now, IMO this is not just a question of self-description. And I don't think that we have to imitate published sources and use it as NPOV. If this becomes the criteria, other slanderous parasite words like "hate site" and "bigoted site" may also creep in. And not in NPOV form (citations), but as weasel terms. Will this be encyclopedical? Most publications are not supposed to be encyclopedical, wikipedia is. White nationalism article, not White supremacism article, describes more accutarely what SF is all about. Usage of terms should route scholars into there. If many sources call the site white supremacist, I'm perfectly in agreement that we can mention it. But in my honest opinion, if there's a separate notion of White nationalism covered by an article here, with it's own quirks and controversies (and mentioning alleged relation to White supremacism in the very beginning) this is what has to be present in the first sentence/paragraph, by objective and fair standarts. Information that I already entered in the Controversy section already covers that allegation of "supremacism" and "hate", coming from watchdog groups and retranslated by many other sources. Stormfront fits the notion of White nationalism by any objective criteria. If you think mentions in media sources as supremacist are so important for this to be refected in the very beginning, than I don't know, maybe you have a point. Though, if 1) self identification matches a notion covered by specific wikipedia article and 2) there's no proof so far the content in wikipedia article doesn't match what Stormfront is then IMO it is ridiculous situation to omit this in introduction. Maybe it is possible to work out a compromise, something like "self-described White nationalist board, also commonly referred to as White supremacist in media sources".--Poison sf 21:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can look at WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions. I don't have time to lay it all out for you, so you'll have to do the research yourself, but basically it boils down to Stormfront not being regarded as a credible source. We use them as information about themselves (as primary sources), and we can certainly say somewhere in the article that they call themselves white nationalists, but we don't use them as authoritative, third-party sources i.e. we don't call them white nationalists as though that's what others call them. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What I propose here for is not like just citing Stormfront self-description as NPOV. I propose trying to objectively find out what notion covered on wikipedia fits Stormfront more. Using just published sources in such case is a dangerous road. What we got here is mostly just mass media, often internet-based. There's no even any pretense of impartiality or careful picking in terms in most or all available articles (they're not so numerous). Most often they use slanderous terms like hate - bigotry - supremacism - nazis interchangeably, without any consideration where the usage is or is not warranted. There's nothing neutral about it. This should be overridden IMO by objective and neutral consideration which term fits better. There's a White nationalism article on wikipedia. There's a link I've already given to the manifesto, a result of long deliberations and finding out minimal platform that is seen as the common ground by all fit to be White nationalists. What does better describe this position taken by Stormfront, officially endorsed there as kind of "party line", White nationalism or White supremacism? Objective assesment of this is all that is required IMO. Now I understand the problem of getting the fair assessment here. Although BTW same problem exists with Black nationalism and Black supremacism. The latter two also intersect. But people are much more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt in case of Black Nationalist Nation of Islam and do not throw "supremacism" allegations with NPOV pretense. Is it just the mass media who's arbiter here? I don't consider it a good idea - copying POV slander from a few mass media articles not pretending on serious study and making this to appear NPOV at wikipedia. If we cannot agree on what objectively fits best, I suggest not pretending to have NPOV here and state available POVs in a compromise version, like I mentioned previously, with "self-described" and "referred to in this way by mass media". Well, who knows maybe I'm wrong. If this is not to be, then I guess the only thing left is add "disputed" warning and include a statement of denial by Stormfront of attempts to frame it as "supremacist".--Poison sf 22:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking more about it and considering the relevant policies (e.g. personal research), I admit that "Stormfront is a White nationalist website" is probably not really appropriate. That has to be replaced by something like "claims to be White nationalist" at least. Though I suggest we do not take mass media slander like "White supremacist" too seriously like any kind of objective description, as it is used in biased contexts, far cry from something to call objective research, and is often used interchangeably with other slander. Although it is notable, depending on it like in "Stormfront is white supremacist website" is in essence something as merited as "hateful website", "bigoted website" or "neo-nazi website". I hope something neutral can be worked out here. Whether my suggestions are accepted or rejected, I think it is definitely required to have self-description somewhere in the very beginning, like the first sentence or the first paragraph.--Poison sf 23:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The forum used to have a webpage with a mission statement, some articles and neo-nazi graphics, and some links. They've dropped all of that and now I can't find any self-description beyond the page tilte, "Stormfront White Nationalist Community." Let's see how it looks to make that the proper name of the forum, which works in their own (minimal) claim. -Willmcw 00:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Willmcw, I'm not sure what exactly would qualify. Any allegations of Stormfront being "white supremacist website", are routinely denied by Don Black and moderator staff with comments like "stormfront is a white nationalist website, not white supremacist website". Though some residual content is allegedly available by directly entering links in a webbrowser, it's true that almost everything got redirected to the forum for now. "Mission statement", or at least something as close to it as anything is now available through the external link I added (Position Statements/manifesto).--Poison sf 01:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More on why I think relatively few available "published sources" are more suitably cited in third person and everything else is copying miserably biased POV into wikipedia. Descriptions as used in publised sources:

"neo-nazi community":

"Stormfront grows a thriving neo-Nazi community" - title

also - "racist website", website visited by white supremacists, hate site

"monitoring the burgeoning community of the racist Stormfront Web site on one of six different computers."

"To the thousands of white supremacists who regularly visit Stormfront"

"By March 1995, that service evolved into Stormfront, the Net's best-known hate site."

-"Electronic Storm", an article on stormfront exclusively

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=551

"white power website":

"One who posted to the Minuteman Project forum on the major white power website Stormfront wrote"

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?aid=12

"hate site":

"They included Don Black, proprietor of Stormfront.org, the most influential hate site on the Internet,"

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=541

"hate site"

For example, the Stormfront Forum, part of a leading hate site run by

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=529

"neo-nazi site"

This February, someone calling himself "Wolfgang Mozart" tried to stir up interest in the American Nationalist Party on stormfront.org, a neo-Nazi site.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=121

"hate website"

"the hate website Stormfront.org is gathering new"

http://www.splcenter.org/donate/giftplan/article.jsp?aid=52

"hate site"

It also includes a withering attack on Don Black's Stormfront hate site.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=208

"hate site"

Since the first hate site was put up by former Klansman Don Black

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=363

"hate site"

the web's most influential hate site, Stormfront.org, has a

"neo-nazi website"

"to neo-Nazi websites like Stormfront.org"

http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/2005/10/academic_racist.html

"world of bigotry"

"the gateway to Don Black's online world of bigotry"

also : "supermarket of online hate"

"Since its creation, Stormfront has served as a veritable supermarket of online hate"

http://www.adl.org/poisoning_web/black.asp

"extremist hate site"

"It was Black who would launch Stormfront, the first extremist hate site on the World Wide Web"

http://hatemonitor.csusb.edu/US_Senate/Howard_Berkowitz.html

"white nationalist website" (WOOHOO!!!)

At about the same time, mercian_valkyrie posted a message on Stormfront.org, the world's first and probably largest white nationalist website and online community.

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,1280992,00.html

"Stormfront White Nationalist website"

"The Stormfront White Nationalist website posted a picture of Albert Wendt"

http://www.listener.co.nz/printable,1012.sm

note: in this article the term supremacist does not seem to appear, so I consider this legit example.

There were several other cases, where "White Nationalist" is capitalized and follows right after the word "Stormfront", but the article also contains references to "supremacists". In such case I assumed they're using "White Nationalist" as part of the website title, not as actual description.

Few examples found along the way, that legitimize the term "white nationalist"

"Samuel Francis, a white nationalist writer [...] died on Feb. 15"

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=532

White Nationalists Seek Respectability in Meeting of "Uptown Bad Guys"

(a very interesting article, that uses the term often)

http://www.ferris.edu/isar/Institut/amren/wnational.htm

That's what I've found so far. As it can be seen, there's no consistency. I didn't notice any source actually spending time to ponder what terms and why to pick. They are happy to apply all the politically correct arsenal of slander liberally. "Supremacist site" didn't even appear to me as most favourite one. Would a first sentence like "Stormfront is a neo-nazi website" or, my favourite, "Stormfront is a online supermarket of hate" read good? I doubt. So why is picking another slander from there more appropriate? Why not pick white nationalist description from another source? By numbers alone, looks like "hate site" is most common description. Especially I don't like giving them such credit like copying it as the first sentence, as something supposedly objective. --Poison sf 01:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


a fresh article, using "white nationalist website"

"The Australian forum on Stormfront - a white nationalist site offering advice to activists and dating advice for white singles"

also: "white pride website", "racist website"

"on the usually quiet Australian forum of a US white pride website."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17562781%255E2702,00.html --Poison sf 16:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USA Today writes:
  • Today he boasts that it has become the most-visited white supremacist site on the Net.[4].
While we should report that Black (sometime) denies being white supremacist, his denial doesn't mean we souhldn't report that others call the site "white supremacist". NPOV requires that we include all viewpoints. -Willmcw 17:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2 Willmcw: I read the article you provider. I've my doubts about the reliability: they could misquote him, spicing the text here and there. Based on past experiences, in that particular sentence I smell a frivolous paraphrasing with their own "clarification", especially since it's not a direct quate. But, well, this is just my POV. As you may have noticed, last time I tried a thing I've seen in another article, while browsing here a little: listing more than one description. What do you think? In this way I do not see white supremacism as especially objectionable. The first line now links to articles about 3 most related concepts (it would be a long shot to claim white supremacism is unrelated), and later in the text it is clarified what is preferred as the self-dentification and what is pushed by so called "hate" watching groups (I'm not sure "watchdog" is inoffensive, but I took the term from elsewhere). I guess I would be more or less ok with something like this, as far as this name-calling issue is concerned. I'll see now what is other parties take on it.--Poison sf 01:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

bamboo delight etc

I don't think that claim by ADL is true, at least not any more. ADL claims

"A subtler, though equally virulent anti-Semitism pervades the Bamboo Delight Web site. Hosted by Blac"

It's unclear where the information is derived from. Maybe from IP/whois record, maybe somebody's allegations (it's claimed in the article that mr Black avoided or did not consider necessary to claim credit himself).

"Beyond his additions to Stormfront, Black has begun to help other white supremacists by hosting their sites without publicly admitting that he is doing so. Unlike sites such as The Truth at Last or White Nationalist News Agency, which are housed by Black and are in effect part of Stormfront, it is not readily apparent that he services these other sites."

At least as it is now, sites which DB is actually (provably) hosting have common IP range and similar whois record:

  • stormfront.org:
    • IP Address: 70.85.161.7
    • IP Location: United States - Texas - Dallas - Theplanet.com Internet Services Inc
  • martinlutherking.org
    • IP Address: 70.86.202.126
    • IP Location: United States - Texas - Dallas - Theplanet.com Internet Services Inc
  • solargeneral.com
    • IP Address: 70.86.202.116
    • IP Location: United States - Texas - Dallas - Theplanet.com Internet Services Inc

And there's Don Black and Stormfront and Florida address in whois details

bamboo delight is totally different:

  • IP Address: 216.169.145.200
  • IP Location: United States - Maryland - Easton - Internet Connection

and in details

 Registrant:
 Bamboo Delight Company
 PO BOX 2792
 Saratoga, CA 95070-0792
 US
 Domain Name: BAMBOO-DELIGHT.COM
 Administrative Contact:
  Bamboo Delight Company
  Delaney, Gregory
  PO BOX 2792
  Saratoga, CA 95070-0792
  US
  408-236-2128
  http://www.emailaddressprotection.com [email]
 Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
  Bamboo Delight Company
  Delaney, Gregory
  PO BOX 2792
  Saratoga, CA 95070-0792
  US
  (408) 236-2128
  http://www.emailaddressprotection.com [email]

so it appears to me that ADL as often doesn't know what it's talking about. Or maybe things have changed a lot since then. It's difficult to tell as they don't provide the rationale for attributing the site to Don Black. I'll remove bamboodelight passage as non-factual at the current moment (or at all).--Poison sf 22:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Very well, I suppose it will have to be this way unless ADL provides some proof. In the meantime, I have created a separate page for Bamboo Delight, noting the attribution dispute. --SohanDsouza 05:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing controversies

Looks like the entire controversies section was pulled out by an anonymous editor. I don't see discussion of this here. I'm putting the entire thing back in for now. Friday (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reversion

To poison sf - By reverting, you have deleted material that is supported by citations, and have reintroduced uncited material and non-NPOV statements. You did not post a message concerning your reasonong on this discussion, nor have you posted a message to my talk. Please self revert. If you feel strongly that I have made any errors, please address them and provide your reasoning as I have done. Thank you, Stick to the Facts 19:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He restored the cited information. You also removed pertinent, factual information in your previous edits.
--Ryodox 20:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The only things I removed were unreferenced, non-NPOV, or provided fallacious reasoning (post hoc ergo propter hoc); ie an implication that one thing was cause by another because it came after another. For example, when AOL blocked stormfront because AOL members reported that it was a phishing scam, and then AOL changed the screen to a general error after Don Black threatened action. The threat did not necessarily cause the change - it could have resulted from AOL looking into the matter, determining there was no phishing, and changing the screen. There is no support for a connection - if there is, please provide a reference.

Who knows why they removed. The reasons you cite are adequate ground for rewording and clarification, but not for removal of notable facts Poison sf 20:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Exactly - who knows why they removed. That's why I deleted your conclusory statement. Since we are in agreement that the conclusion is unsupported, it will be removed. Stick to the Facts 20:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't think we're in agreement. If you're talking about the "lawsuit" passage, note, that the original wording, AFAIK, was "after", NOT "because". So it wasn't giving any incorrect information. If your complaint is that it CAN possibly be understood wrongly (i.e. somebody can be mesled into thinking there's a proven causal link), then it may allow rewording, but NOT removal of notable facts, what you've done in one of revisions (I haven't yet checked the last one). Poison sf 20:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No we are not in agreement, at least we agree on that. Saying X happened after Y is ambiguous and implies a causal connection. A better way to phrase it is Y happened. Later, X happened. This means that Y preceeded X, and can mean either that Y did or did not cause X. Since we don't know whether Y caused X, my way is unambiguous and not misleading. Saying that X happened after Y directly imlies that the earlier caused the later, or at best it is extremely sloppy writing. If I say 'the Titanic sank after I threw a rock at it', that means something very different from 'I threw a rock at the Titanic. Later, it sank.' I've never seen a history book that started at the present and worked its way backwards, have you?Stick to the Facts 21:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's ok to rephrase if the construction with the word "after" is objectionable. You, however, removed information without attempting to rephrase it, that's the problemPoison sf 18:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also clarified misleading information - ie the number of 'members' was given, but the reference cited indicated the number of registered user accounts. To call them 'members' is misleading and inaccurate because there can be many accounts registered to one person, and many non-members register in order to post on the site. There is no logic basis for concluding that 'registered user accounts' = members, so it was deleted. Stick to the Facts 20:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Registered user accounts - restored as more or less sensible. No objection to that one. Some other info was restored as well. Poison sf 20:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - however, the changes you made by reverting were far too extensive for me to change back manually. You also have not restored material supported by cited references. I welcome you to reintroduce your edits, with supporting arguments or citations, after I restore. Every edit I make will have supporting arguments and/or references. I appreciating you doing the same. Thank you, Stick to the Facts 20:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some material wasn't adequately supported. I restored only what is undebatable and actually proved by links Poison sf 20:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the info I included without cites was supported by other cites I made. I will amend later to independently cite each fact that is so supported. Stick to the Facts 21:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Followup - while poison sf changed some of my facts and references back after his revert, he did not restore others and has also restored unreferenced material and non-NPOV statements. I understand that he has also provided additional referenced material of his own. Unfortunately, his initial reversion caused changes far too extensive for me to restore manually - therefore, I am compelled to revert to my last edit. If poison sf wished, he can change his edits back without reverting. Also, please provide arguments supporting your changes. Thank you. Stick to the Facts 20:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments I have on other issues:

Stormfront is neither revisionist nor "anti-semitic" board. The sensible criteria is: having revisionist or anti-semitic beliefs (often shared by non-caucasians) is not enough for being accepted as full-privileged member with access to the whole of the board. Only a white nationalist will be admitted. That's the only common ground. Take revisionism, for example. There're many posts on the board about it and it's a pretty popular belief, but it's not a consensus of all members of the board. Not everybody agrees with it or even has any interest in it at all. So, in my opinion, this is unsuitable in the lead sentence, where only the most precise description must be given. It's ok and fair enough to mention these beliefs in appropriate section (such information is given in the Members section).

I cited facts that suggest otherwise. I didn't say that the views were those of the owner of SF. I said they are thread topics - they are. Nothing do dispute there, it stays. Who is a member? Every registered user with privileges? My statements stand. Is there some other criteria? Cite it. I in no way implied that those views are shared by everyone - don't color it that way, and don't suggest that I did, please. Stick to the Facts 21:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point here. Those descriptions are not suitable, because they're misleading. It would be similar, if an anti-racist forums that has Marxists or greens would be called "Marxist forum" or "green forum". The three descriptors that were present in the lead sentence precisely described the main theme of the board and the common ground between its members. If, for example, Holocaust revisionism is added there, then why, for example, not add there also "Christian, pro-gun, pro-family, anti-gay, ..." (long list follows). Because all these opinions and sentiments are represented on the board. What exactly elevates "revisionism" above, for example, Christianity? It's all secondary belief systems, that are popular, but not uniformly accepted by the members. Such are mentioned in a proper place - Members section (both anti-semitism and holocaust revisionism are mentioned). You're introducing unnecessary repetition into article and blur the definition, by mixing primary beliefs of the board that are a matter of consensus of all members with peripheral and secondary beliefs like Holocaust revisionism. Poison sf 18:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The descriptions are not misleading. I did not say that they were views shared by the majority, I said they are a selection of thread topics. It is not the same as pointing to a pro-satan worship thread on a church of god website where the poster was lit up by the majority of others. If a post draws a lot of fire from the usual suspects, it would indeed be unfair and misleading to list it in the context in which I listed Holocaust revisionism etc. However, if a thread has overwheling support for the original post, and very little or no dissent, then it is completely reasonable to list it because the view is clearly not universally opposed - even though it might not be shared by the majority. And remember that I never hinted or suggested that they were shared by the majority. If anything, they further demonstrate just how fractured your 'movement' is - I think you've just given me a great idea for a new paragraph. Thanks, Stick to the Facts 20:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore - you are more than welcome to post the names of other thread topics on such issues as religion, family values, etc. That would be fine with me. However, if it turns out that there is either fractured opinion on the matter, or if you cite a thread that starts out 'Let's all come together as one in peace and harmony" and then 100 people flame it, then I will change my language to specify how much flak each thread drew from the others. The Holocaust revisionist thread drew little or no flak and that will be so represented - for something that is divisive like religion, I'll note that too. In short - no matter how to try to weasel a misleading statement, I'll be there to clarify it. If you can't stick to objective facts, then what are you trying to hide, and why? Stick to the Facts 20:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're still missing the point. It's not that Holocaust revisionism is not popular on the board. It's that it's wrong to add descriptions in the lead sentence that are superflous and obfuscate the definition. Holocaust revisionism is a peripheral belief, discussed by a subgroup of members, in particular in a special subforum ("Revisionism"). It's wrong to say that Stormfront is a "revisionist" forum, because it's not its main theme (rather one among many secondary ones). This, in particular, means that revisionism alone doesn't qualify one to post outside of open / opponent sections. On the other hand, white nationalists (for whom this forum exist) can discuss Holocaust revisionism, if they desire so (as well as many other such auxillary topics). Calling Stormfront "revisionist" forum is not more suitable than calling it a "homemaking" or "dating" forum on the basis that there're such sections and threads within it. I find this insinuations about "trying to hide" something ridiculous, as the facts about Holocaust revisionism and anti-semitism being prominent beliefs among members are present in the members section (where various beliefs and principles members adhere to are explained in detail).
So, "hiding something" is little more than your fantasies. What I'm doing is trying to keep the main definition clear and concise, not obfuscated by some references to beliefs that are auxilary to the main belief system of the forum and are picked from a large set of such auxilary beliefs on some unknown criteria. Poison sf 20:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Violent overthrow" - where is it? There's a link to "Civil war" thread which, per se, is not necessarily about any kind of "violent overthrow of US government". At least not necessarily done by white nationalist, or even any other force within the US. It can be started by some militant group like Atzlanists or by rioting Blacks and by many other hypothetical circumstances.

I will clear up that language to make it more accurate/objective, or will look for another cite. Stick to the Facts 21:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Ethnic cleansing" - the thread itself is not incitement to performing ethnic cleansing or anything like that any more than posting a link to a book about war or terrorists is incitement of war or terrorism. In fact, white people also can be victims of ethnic cleansing, so this may be as well a warning of what possibly may happen and what to expect in such case. It's certainly not illegal as insinuated by wording such as "Although promotion of illegality is ostensibly banned". Calls for ethnic cleansing and encouragement of it is illegal. Posting information about how ethnic cleansing usually happen is not illegal.

The guidelines for posting says do not "advocate or suggest any illegal activity." This is much broader than saying "Do not make any illegal posts." The posts themselves are not illegal and I never suggested that they were, nor would I cite to them if they were - I would just call the FBI. I stated what the policy is, and then gave references that suggest that the prohibition is not enforced. Nothing more. I cannot believe that you can say (type?) with a staight face that that ethnic cleansing post does not "advocate or suggest" illegal activity. If the posts are there because they slipped by the moderators - you know about em now. When the thread disappears, my statement disappears. Regards, Stick to the Facts 20:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've always understood that rule as applying to something more or less resembling open and clear solicitation to perform some illegal acts, with the purpose of shielding the board from being raided and members from being setup by agent provocateurs (and the case of Matt Hale shows that it doesn't take much to get jailed for decades). And not in some sort of hypothetical reality like "Civil War 2", but something much less abstract and fictional, like calling to perform ethnic cleansing here and now or actually starting that civil war by overthrowing the government. This stuff is very blurry. For example, how would one interpret posting a link to a book called "The Turner Diaries"? Commenting on it, stating that one linkes what is written there? Banning that would be over the top, but it's pretty difficult to draw the line between this and ethnic cleansing manual, which can be seen as a more practical guide-like version of The Turner Diaries. Apparently, moderators thought that this one doesn't pass the threshhold, as I see that a moderator commented on it at the end and closed the thread, but didn't remove it. I'm in favour of staying on the safe side whenever possible, so if I've time I'll make an inquiry about this case, whether it's fully legal and possible re-examination of it. Poison sf 17:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quoting the language directly from the posting guidelines. If your members understand the prohibition to mean something different, then the language is misleading and should be changed to reflect the REAL guidelines. Again, I have never said that the posts themselves are illegal - although they might be. For all I know, some poster/s may be on parole and one of their conditions may be to refrain from activity that would include such posts. I have no idea and it is not for me to speculate. However - take a closer look at the quotes I gave elsewhere directly from posters in the thread. Can you tell me that none of those posts 'advocates or suggests' illegal activity? Look again - "The ultimate payback to Mexico for all those wetbacks!" "A lot of the things that were discussed here in detail, like raiding military supply depots, I'd never thought of and their guide on how to do so could prove invaluable." "For once, someone has come up with a legimate plan we can reach, for once." "The Balkan wars have set the standard for cleaning out ethnic troublemakers. I'd like to hear some suggestions about adapting Balkan tactics to the USA too." I can cite others but I think you get the point. If you want this taken out, you will have to either explain to me exactly how each and every one of these statements neither 'advocates' nor 'suggests' illegal activity. Or, the thread has to come off the SF website. Even if you do, I'll just come back with another thread like it, and the gist of the sentence will be there until every last thread is scrapped from the SF website. Of course, you can also change the text of the posting guidelines. Regards, Stick to the Facts 18:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is something more than a link to a book. It contains many replies supporting ethic cleansing. Look at the cite. I did not in any way suggest these views were shared by the majority or managers of SF. Also - I didn't not distinguish between white and other ethnic cleansing, do you want me to say that it was pro-non-white ethic cleansing? I would be happy to. Something is not banned just because you say it is. If you say it is banned, but it is there, it is not truly banned at all. Banning something and then not enforcing that ban is no ban at all. No one will be fooled otherwise. However, I did in fact note that it is claimed to be banned. Stick to the Facts 21:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moderators, like on most internet webforums, are volunteers who largerly depend on user reports to remove problematic content. Something may simply pass under the radar. This particular case is controversial. The ethnic cleansing discussion is edgy, but posting a link to a book does not contitute illegality. Even favourably commenting on such book or actions described in it in a vague fashion is not necessarily illegal (though, it may be repelling for many people). For example, saying "I wouldn't mind ethnic cleansing to happen" is not agitating others to perform illegal acts, while something clear and unveiled such as "go outside and kill them" is. That's what I mean. Poison sf 18:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think "The ultimate payback to Mexico for all those wetbacks!" falls under "advocate or suggest?" Stick to the Facts 20:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other additions near these seemed ok.

Removal of "disgrunted White nationalist" description is not suitable. The sentence which was in place was specifically about White nationalist members (non WN members are also mentioned before it). If you don't like that it's unsourced, the whole paragraph must then be removed. The paragraph itself is somewhat of a compromise between various groups of editors. I'm not even that convinced myself that bitching of various groups of online users is information notable enough. But in the past this paragraph stayed as more or less NPOV and compromise summary of this stuff. I'll try to find some sources, but it's difficult and, I think, this passage never had any. Neither, if I'm not missing something, did your revision. Same goes for other changes in that paragraph.

I guess that's all for now. Poison sf 20:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A revision that deletes non-NPOV statements does not need a cite. A revision that deletes unsuported information does not need a cite. Revisions that change cited information DO need a cite where that revision pertains directly to the cited information. No cited reference is required, however, if the revision of the cited info pertains to a mischaracterization of the cited reference, or if the cited reference is an invalid reference, or invalid conclusions drawn from the info.
The sentence is much more objective without the term 'disgruntled.' You don't know what their specific state of mind was, whether it was mild annoyance or raging fury. Having seen your website, however, I am inclined to agree that it was probably closer to the latter. Of course, you don't even give a cite indicating that there has been any such censorship - I have let that slide. I am willing to concede small details like that if you are willing to comprimise in other regards. Here's what I have in mind. I revert and address the things you've pointed out. That makes more work for you because you've made other substantive changes since then - but you started this, not me. And you're one revert ahead of me. Once I've made my changes, you can go through and make your own - if you delete any one of my references, or anything that is supported by one of those references, then unless you provide a better reference, it will be put back. If you plan on doing otherwise, save yourself the trouble. If you change anything else, make sure that you provide cites, arguments, and explanations where appropriate. That's what I have done. If you can't do that much, it gets changed back. And by the way, we only get three reverts a day - and when those are used up, keep in mind that I can type very, very very fast.
As for some things being a compromise between various editors - I have addressed this elsewhere. I am not bound by anyone elses pacts or treaties. Every change I make will be supported by cited references, valid arguments, and explanations. If I fail to do that, let me know and if you are persuasive I WILL change them back. On the other hand, some of your 'arguments' and 'facts' are clearly meant to distort the truth, and I cannot believe that it is entirely unintentional. If I absolutely have to, I will make in depth, detailed arguments to make my point and I'll explain them on a level a 3rd grader could understand. Regards, Stick to the Facts 01:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL talk about hair-splitting. Well, if a person complains about censorship, what is his state of mind? Put "annoyed" there is that's really THAT important or changes anything. OK, if there's such a demand for references, I think this paragraph should go in entirety, because it has no sources. Then, if sources are found, all or part of it may be restored. As for the compromise, that whole paragraph was hanging on that compromise so far, because there was nothing more tangible (such as sources). Since you're not ok with it, I've deleted it for now as unsourced as a whole. Poison sf 18:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will reexamine the sentence "Although promotion of illegality is ostensibly banned, the site contains numerous threads devoted to such topics as ethnic cleansing [1] and Civil War II military tactics [2] in spite of moderation of the forums." I'll reexamine the references I cited. Please be patient - if the sentence is overblown or the references do not in fact suggest the promotion of illegal activity I will amend, but I appreciate you giving me the chance to make a determination before you weigh in again. Regards, Stick to the Facts 17:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Followup - the comment about the promotion of illegality as supported by the thread on ethic cleansing stays. The book the thread is based on and the comments supporting it CLEARLY address perpetrating ethnic cleansing and not defending against it. See for example these reader comments: "The ultimate payback to Mexico for all those wetbacks!" "A lot of the things that were discussed here in detail, like raiding military supply depots, I'd never thought of and their guide on how to do so could prove invaluable." "For once, someone has come up with a legimate plan we can reach, for once." "The Balkan wars have set the standard for cleaning out ethnic troublemakers. I'd like to hear some suggestions about adapting Balkan tactics to the USA too." "Remember that some nations will see this as a terrorist manual, and with certin laws, one could be arrested for simply owning it. Be careful when printing it."
Shall I go on? There are 43 posts in this thread.
Here is a direct quote from the book itself: "The purpose of this manual is to politically focus European Americans and to pass along time proven methods of ridding their cities of predatory Blacks and their White defenders." To suggest that this thread is not about perpetrating ethic cleansing is absolutely preposterous. Don't bother finding something addressing defending against ethic cleansing - that will not defeat my argument that the thread is also pro-ethic cleansing because my conclusion is still valid even if both are present. This would be true even if the thread were split 50:50 (and it is not) or even if most of the thread addressed defending against it (and it does not.) As it is, all or nearly all are pro-ethnic cleansing. Stick to the Facts 17:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Civil War II thread - I can cull quotes from that thread as well that address striking first. Please also note that I have not included the Holocaust denial, prominent displays of swastikas, and other Nazi images. All of these things are illegal in many countries and therefore qualify. Stormfront and Wikipedia are both available internationally except where banned. I haven't included them yet, would you like me to? If I want I can find numerous other threads to cite and I'd be happy to put them all up if you like. Regards, Stick to the Facts 17:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, do show quotes or something. I don't think the vague things like "striking first" count though. Tough talking, but I don't think that anybody in US would be prosecuted for saying something like "we must strike first if there's Civil War 2" even if the identity of such poster would be exposed.
Your identity is always just 2 subpoenas away (actually only one since your ISP will give you up without one.) I'll show the quotes. As for whether anyone would be prosecuted, who knows. Let me know what happens. Regards, Stick to the Facts 19:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"All of these things are illegal in many countries and therefore qualify" - no they don't qualify. A lot of things may be illegal *somewhere*, the ban on illegal content is of course only basing on US laws. Though, if you really want this clarification, it can be inserted, that ban on illegality is based on US laws alone and some speech that is constitutionally protected speech under US jurisdiction is illegal in some other countries, for example, Germany. This information may be notable enough to place it in the article
"If I want I can find numerous other threads to cite" - why not. Let's see what do you have. I think it's going to be a tough task to find content obviously illegal under US laws because most of it is removed, for self-preservation alone if nothing else (even constitutionally protected speech in US has its limits, and obviously illegal content may lead to law enforcement raids and forum closure). Poison sf 19:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tell it to the judge.
Since you asked so politely, I will find some more threads and cite them.
As for your argument "...most of it is removed, for self-preservation alone if nothing else (even constitutionally protected speech in US has its limits, and obviously illegal content may lead to law enforcement raids and forum closure)." This is like telling the DEA agent "well of course I didn't know there were 10 kilos of cocaine in my trunk - I mean, that would be illegal and I'd go to jail - no one wants to go to jail, therefore I could not have known it was there." If Tony Soprano says "Hey Paulie, Christopher, Silvo - you are stricly forbidden to kill anyone!" And they keep killing people, it suggests that the 'ban' is nothing more than a CYA statement and a sham. Not gonna fly. As for MOST of it being removed, that suggests that ALL of it is NOT removed - my statement is accurate. If you really don't like it, remove all of the posts and threads from your website. Even though they are cached in google for all eternity, I would be willing to consider pulling any statement here on wiki if the threads and/or posts are removed from the SF website. If they stay on the SF website, PARTICULARLY after I have pointed them out to you, my statement will stand. You have no excuse to leave them up now that I have given you actual notice. Regards, Stick to the Facts 19:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to provide something more substantial though, something actually prosecutable under US law. The "Civil war 2" and "Ethnic cleansing" can be said to be edgy, yes, militant, perhaps, but not demonstrably illegal. Not in US, at least. Unless you can find some direct, open calls for overthrow of US government, this rules the "civil war 2" thread out. It's discussion of hypothetical circumstances and scenarios. "Ethnic cleansing" is even more edgy and some posters, admittedly, are not showing themselves in a great light in there, but still I fail to see any clearly law-breaking statements in there. It looks like few posters wouldn't mind for ethnical cleansing to take place. Though it's never more than a discussion of hypothetical events and circumstances (such as new "civil war") without direct and suggestion to perform such acts, i.e. something like "we're planning to ethnically cleanse a nearby district soon, who is joining?". Therefore I disagree with formulations of such kind as "in spite of moderation guidelines" etc. The closest thing I see is "The Balkan wars have set the standard for cleaning out ethnic troublemakers", but this, in my opinion, still falls short of clearly and unquestionable suggesting to perform any illegal acts.

Ethnic cleansing is, believe it or not, against the law, and it was 'advocated or suggested' in that thread. And as a matter of fact, in the unlikely event that civil war II did indeed break out, even if you had nothing to do with starting it, if you are a civilian and not in the military, it would indeed be illegal (first degree murder, actually) to kill anyone under any circumstance other than self defense - and it is only self defense if you are in IMMINENT danger - and only if the response is only enough to defend yourslef and no more. In other words, going commando and attacking the 'enemy' if you are a civilian is indeed murder - and if captured you would be tried as a murderer and not given the protections accorded to a POW. In short, yes indeed, the thread 'advocates or suggests' illegal activity.

One of the few things that the posters ARE clearly suggesting to do in that thread about ethnic cleansing is reading the book. Reading the book is not an illegal act.

I agree that it is not and I never suggested that it was. The prohibition is against 'advocating or suggesting illegal activity', not 'don't make illegal posts.' Stick to the Facts 21:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may be compared to the speech of certain Atzlan ideologues in USA. Some of them, including, if I remember correctly, certain academic(s) stated that creation of a state called Atzlan on the southern US soil is "an inevitability". Others proposed that Europeans will be forced to leave the place. Although some may see this as extremist and militant, laws in US protect such speech. This is not much different from what is being said in those Stormfront threads. I think that all this and pretty much everything except some obvious and clear calls to perform well-defined criminal activity is protected as free speech and that's why Stormfront moderators don't deem it necessary to delete those threads.

That has nothing to do with SF. If you don't like it address it in their wiki entry. It is no defense to say 'he does it so I can do it.' And again, I never said that the contents of the threads themselves were illegal (although they could be for all I know.) I merely suggest that they contradict the stated posting policy. Stick to the Facts 20:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose changing this to

(new sentence) The site contains numerous threads devoted to such topics as discussion of hypothetical Civil War scenarios and ethnic cleansing (references). Such topics, as well as discussion of Holocaust may be illegal under many jurisdictions outside of US, but are permitted by the forum rules.

I can't go along with this. An orthodox jewish website can have threads about ethic cleansing - but this would be in an entirely different context. The thread clearly demonstrates far more pro-ethnic cleansing opinions than opposing and it is perfectly reasonable to point that out. Also, the scenarios are Civil War *II* scenarios. While 'Civil War II' might be a 'civil war', it is not THE "Civil War". When used in caps that suggests the american civil war of the 19th century. As a side note, why do you feel the need to try to be so sneaky and deceptive in your language? If you can't get your message out with blunt and impartial truth, what does that tell you? You are never going sneak anything by me. Stick to the Facts 21:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What the text I'm disagreeing with was suggesting is that Stormfront's rules are being violated by these posts. But, being "pro Civil War" is not violating it. The rules state "don't advocate / suggest illegal activity". Abstract things like "being pro pro-civil war" in my opinion is not prohibited by such rules. A person must actually suggest starting it or overthrowing the government or something like that, not express that he wouldn't mind for that to happen in an ambigous way. Though, I'm tired of this hair splitting and I think I know how to address this in a neutral way complying to Wikipedia policies. I may go as "Critics argue that the policies are broken by discussion about ...". Well, in an ideal case, there would be a link to somebody or something notable stating such opinion, because there is not supposed to be original research. But, since the subject of the article is a webforum and an element of online culture, I guess your own comments will be enough to say that.
Actually, do you realize that discussing ANY strategies or plans about a proposed illegal activity, even if very preliminary, can be an intent to commit that crime? I submit that any thread that discusses strategies and/or methods of carrying out ethnic cleansing or 'civil war II' are IN THEMSELVES illeal. Ethnic cleansing is not only illegal - it is just about the most heinously illegal thing anyone can conceive of. Also, while engaging in combat as a member of the military is not illegal (assuming that the conflict is legal in the first place) - it IS illegal if you are a civilian - unless you are acting in self defense. Self defense does not mean attacking the enemy if you aren't in imminent danger. Planning or discussing strategy about such a thing could also be an intent crime. (DISCLAIMER - This is in no way to be construed as legal advice, it is included only as a purely academic exercise - it should be construed as speculation only - no consideration has been received nor offered - it is not to be relied upon PERIOD. The author explicitly notes that he in no way holds himself out to be knowledged or experienced in this area of the law - this disclaimer applies to all statements containing any law related information by the author)
I don't know what's all that stuff about civil war II. I do perfectly realize that what it indirectly refers to american civil war. That's why in my proposed version of this passage I used a link to a wikipedia article about American Civil War (see yourself my proposed version above).
The book is specifically about a 'civil war ii' - i think that is even the title but im not sure. Calling it "Civil War" is not only misleading, it is an outright lie. Civil War in caps is a proper noun and refers to the American Civil War of the 19th century, at least in US English usage. Stick to the Facts 21:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "sneaky" or "non-sneaky" I suggest you leave your personal opinions about me to yourself. I'm not very interested in them and I'm only trying to approach all claims with intense scrutiny, which can only benefit the article. Poison sf 16:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Intense scrutiny? If you say so. Unbiased scrutiny? Absolutely not. I merely note that if you are trying to twist words around to get people to think they mean something other than what you think they REALLY mean, it is misleading. A true but misleading statement or omission is every bit as bad as a false statement as an element of, for example, fraud - did you know that? (Again this is in no way legal advice - don't rely on it - see disclaimer above) Stick to the Facts 21:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This avoids the speculation about the above mentioned examples breaking the forum policies, which, in my opinion, wasn't demonstrated in a clear and unambigous way. Poison sf 20:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addresing some of your points in detailed fashion:

  • "The ultimate payback to Mexico for all those wetbacks!". This is not directly suggesting any activity.
I really cannot believe that you can deny that the ethic cleansing of Mexico would not be illegal. How is this different from someone saying 'this is how to go about ethic cleansing' and then someone saying 'that would be a great way to get back at mexico!' It is completely unreasonable to say that that isn't suggesting illegal activity, I'm

sorry.

If you see this statement as advocating ethnic cleansing of Mexico, I simply disagree. In fact I have no idea what it actually means. I've several theories. Maybe he sees as ethnic cleansing of mexicans in America as "payback". Or who knows, somebody may see just an act of writing such book a "payback". At least I see that as no less likely than your theory that it suggest ethnic cleansing of Mexico. I absolutely don't see it that way. I think you need to stop playing the medium and pretend that your idea of what an ambigous statement means is the true one. Poison sf 20:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're watching some true crime TV show and they talk about a guy who planned an elaborate scheme to get away with killing his wife, and then you turned to your friend and said "hey I think we could pull that off against Joe down the street!" Are you seriously telling me that isn't suggesting illegal activity? What is the difference? I am suggesting that the statement itself COULD be illegal for all I know. It is definitely suggesting illegal activity. Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • "A lot of the things that were discussed here in detail, like raiding military supply depots, I'd never thought of and their guide on how to do so could prove invaluable." This is not unambigously suggesting any activity either.
"...their guide on how to do so could prove invaluable." Invaluable for what? The guide could be invaluable as a door stop or paperweight? You don't really think a judge would ever say "well he mentioned raiding military supply depots and then finished the sentence with ""...their guide on how to do so could prove invaluable", but he could have meant invaluable for use as a paperweight. I guess he's got us this time - the defendant is free to go." You sir are naive. (No legal advice see disclaimer above.) Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"...their guide on how to do so could prove invaluable." I argue that the sentence above is an intent crime IN ITELF - even preliminary plans or discussions can be an intent to commit the underlying offense. It stays. The activity itself is highly illegal and it is 'advocated or suggested.' (see disclaimer - not legal advice - dont rely on this info)
I don't see anybody in clear language suggesting any activity. Poison sf 20:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to say "I am suggesting we do X" to be suggesting X. No moreso than you have to say "by the way this transaction is fraudulent" to be convicted of fraud. Whether something is suggested or implied or fradulent is determined from the language and implications and CONDUCT and the context. (THis isn't legal advice I don't know what I'm talking about see disclaimer if you want legal advice go consult an attorney.) Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For once, someone has come up with a legimate plan we can reach, for once." Perhaps this person sees it as a legitimate plan that he thinks we can reach. Since he's not even directly appealing to members to carry out such plan he's just stating personal opinion.
"A plan we can reach?" Sure, it's an opinion. But guess what? Something can be one thing and also be another thing at the same time. An orange can be a fruit AND a round orange object. I cat can be BOTH an animal and a mousecatcher. "A plan we can reach" can be BOTH an opinion and a suggestion. "Hey Joe! I have here a plan on how to shoplift a sixpack from the convenience store,I think this is a plan we can reach!" See? An opinion and a suggestion all rolled into one. It never ceases to amaze me how people manage to convince themselves they'll be able to outsmart the court with these kind of arguments. (Not that I know anything about the law - don't listen to me - see disclaimer - if you need advice see a lawyer) Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Balkan wars have set the standard for cleaning out ethnic troublemakers. I'd like to hear some suggestions about adapting Balkan tactics to the USA too." Since he's not clearly suggesting applying those tactics he's technically not advocating anything than somebody "making suggestions about adapting Balkan tactics". Making such suggestions AFAIK is not illegal.
Sorry, you aren't getting any traction by saying this isn't suggesting illegal activity - "I'd like to hear some suggestions about adapting Balkan tactics to the USA too." How can you possibly say this isn't suggesting illegal activity? "Hey Joe, Dave really sets the standard for robbing banks. I'd like to hear some suggestions about adapting his ideas to the First National Bank of Hooterville on Main Street." I mean, get real. Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Perhaps this person sees it as a legitimate plan that he thinks we can reach. " You said it yourself. Saying 'hey guys we can do this!' isn't advocating or suggesting? Please.
He's not detailing on what the plan is. Context suggests it's probably something described in the book in whole or in part... done somewhere... somewhen. Perhaps, when US and US law don't exist anymore.
You're really reaching now. Don't bring fanciful hypotheticals into this unless you can back it up with a reference in the book. You can't say "Hey Tom let's go kill Jim tonight" and then argue "oh no your honor, I meant in the hypothetical situation where Jim was an undead zombie - so technically he couldn't really be killed. I just meant it like "lets go destroy his animated corpse and rid the world of the abomination."" Gimme a break. Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in some place out of US (there're people who advocate creating "White homeland" in some weird places).Poison sf 20:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The book has maps of the US. Again, you won't get away with bizzare and unfounded hypotheticals. Don't say "maybe he meant this really weird thing" unless you can point to some reason to think that. If you are caught by the police standing alone in a field with a bloody knife in one hand and a severed head in another, and you had been seen tying that person up and putting them in your trunk 30 mins earlier, do you really think you are going to win with the argument "you can't prove I did it because it could have been flying invisible frog aliens." You won't. (Not that I am giving legal advice here cause I'm not - see disclaimer - if you want legal advice go see a lawyer.) Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I'd like to hear some suggestions about adapting Balkan tactics to the USA too." That can be an element of an intent crime and the statement itself can be illegal (not legal advice, don't have reliance on this statement, see disclaimer above)

Hmm. Not having on the board something that is an "element of an intent of crime" is somewhat different that what the guideline deals with. Even something innocent sounding per se may be element of intent of crime in context of other proof in the court of law. This is, however, entirely different matter. Poison sf 20:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oooo I like your answer. I completely give in here - the board does not specifically prohibit posts that are illegal IN THEMSELVES, it only prohibits advocating or suggesting. You got me. Tell you what - I'll amend the sentence and take out the part about how it violates the guidelines and I'll point out that it is possibly illegal in itelf. Do you accept that compromise? No? Awwwww shucks.  :(
Actually, I lied - I don't give in here - it IS suggesting or advocating - for the same reasons I gave above. Of course, I could still add the illegal part if you want. If you really want, we can take this bone of contention up with the moderators for a dispute resolution. Who do you think they will side with? Want to find out? Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It all depends on how conservatively or liberally you interpret the guidelines. I interpret them the way that only something that most definitely, in clear language, unambigously suggests such activity breaks the guideline. You're interpreting it in an ultra-broad fashion so that even the remark about Mexico is somehow suggesting some activity. Admittedly, a guideline is very short and thus can have many interpretations, but I don't know any reason why yours should have an upper hand. I'm ok with including your opinion in a neutral way though.

It doesn't matter how YOU interpret them - if you interpret them as something other than their literal meaning, then state explicitly WHAT you take them to mean in the wiki article. Even so that would only be your opinion and not the consensus. Words must be taken at their literal meaning if no evidence exists to suggest that they are meant to mean something else. If there is that evidence, put it in the article (with a cite.) Stick to the Facts 21:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've also, for some reason, moved some information into the lead paragraph, listing some sections selected using unknown criteria. If you don't know, that section is supposed to include only absolutely essential things. Now it's, in my opinion, unacceptably bloated. I'll create a special section for legality issues and for the list of forum subsections, such as Strategy and Tactics and Self defence - is it even needed? What for?

The website is practically 90% forums and 10% articles (I'm being generous.) I think a description of some of the forums is entirely relevant - moreso than some of the other info in the lead-in. I de-bloated it by moving some member info to the members section. As for moving the legality info - I cannot accept you overemphasizing the CYA statement you call 'posting guidelines.' They are clearly not enforced, at least not all the time. I gave you actual notice of threads that violate the policy - they are still there. You can't pretend that they 'slipped past' the moderators now - you can delete them at any time and you haven't.
You gave notice of threads that in YOUR OPINION violate policies. I personally can't delete anything, because I'm not a moderator. I can go lengths to try and convince them to remove something (success far from guaranteed), but so far I've been occupied more more important priorities. I doubt they're even as of now aware of/care about these disputes.
The entry no longer says that they violate policies. I changed that before. I merely list some, and then state the policy. As for this - "I personally can't delete anything, because I'm not a moderator." I know who you are to within 3 people, and it is possible you aren't a moderator - in fact the person who I think you are most likely to be isn't a moderator. But that is completely irrelevant. Whether they have notice of the content is also irrelevant. The posts are there. My statements are accurate. I don't say they violate the guidelines, I merely identify some threads. I gave cited references for the threads I cited. There is no further reason for this discussion. Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's your personal opinion that they are clearly not enforced. You aren't even any kind of notable expert on this, and some of your judgements seem pretty shoddy to me (for example in that Mexico case). I think it's already pretty generous to basically cite you via "Critics argue". Actually, personal research is not even supposed to be here, but, since it's a webforum, I'm willing to accept your claims (on this website) as worthy of mention in the article.
I don't say they aren't enforced any longer. See above. Point is now moot. Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming that I'm fully objective on this issue, that would probably be impossible. However, there're policies on Wikipedia that help deal with such issues and avoiding introducing personal opinions, such as citing respectable sources and third party opinions in a neutral way. There's little to cite here beyond personal opinions, but at least that can be done in a neutral way instead of pretending that personal opinion is a fact. I don't know what I have "overemphasized", I basically just moved the information into another section and rephrased your own words in a neutral way. If you would like the "guidelines not enforced" claim mentioned in the article, I'm ok with mentioning it. In a neutral way, that is.Poison sf 20:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Check the citation rules again. What I am referencing is a statement about what ACTUALLY appears on the SF website and the references are ACTUAL proof. There is no better cite than that. As for citing respectable sources - I fully agree that your website isn't respectable - but it IS of the utmost respectability as a source proving the existence of threads on your site. They are direct proof and there is no more reliable or 'respectable' proof than that. Check the guidelines again please. Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, if you would like, that should be moved into separate section, because it's unnecessary bloat in the lead paragraph. Also it's unclear what's the criteria? If you want to mention all notable sections, then why no even brief mention of international sections or newslinks sections?

You are welcome to include them yourself.
OK I'll see what can be done. I propose a "bulleted" list including all subsections with brief descriptions. Well, to avoid making it too bloated perhaps some may be lumped together in one line, for example all international sections may be mentioned briefly as one element in the bulleted list. Poison sf 20:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do it and I'll look at it. Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or did you try to select those which, in your view, are most "incriminating"? In that case it's strange, what's wrong with, for example, Strategy and Tactics section, in which political strategy and tactics are discussed?

Maybe there is nothing wrong with Strategy and Tactics and it is evidence that i'm NOT biased?

It's unclear at the moment, if the list of sections was intended to serve your argument on the "illegality guideline" issue, I propose moving it with all other related material to its own section.

It characterizes some forums, and forums are 90% of the site.

If it's not then it must either be dropped as unessential information not serving any practical purpose

Not acceptable - it is practically the most relevant info in the entire article
What, uninteresting and dull listing of few randomly and unsystematically picked forum subsections is the most relevant info in the entire article? LOL I understand you want to give some credit to yourself for adding it, but this is simply a ridiculous claim. Poison sf 20:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of an entry in an encyclopedia or other reference that was left out because it was dull, even though it was perfectly accurate and relevant, have you? Your website is rife with this sort of "argument" but this is the real world my friend - and you cannot censor me here. You guys just love to hand-wave arguments with 'irrelevant' and pretend that by invoking that magic word you win the argument. Laughable. Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

or otherwise a separate section should be created which would systematically and consistently cover ALL important sections of Stormfront. Poison sf 19:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You write it. Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to address other forums you are more than welcome, and if you describe them objectively and with cites I won't touch them. If you want to move it to another section I'm not entirely opposed to that, depending on how its done. Feel free to go ahead and do it and I'll take a look. Regards, Stick to the Facts 21:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's impossible to adequately address them in the lead section without unnecessarily bloating it. If anything, a new section must be created where it may be . The lead section may briefly mention the presence of many sections within Stormfront forum. That's the most logical layout. Poison sf 20:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look at it. Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW if we really go into depths, ethnic cleansing is not even necessarily "an illegal activity".

Absurd. I don't even know what to say to this - I mean, just do a google on 'murder' and 'conspiracy to commit murder' and 'attempted murder' - then multiply that by millions. This is simply preposterous. Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There're precedents when such activity was fully legal. Examples: resettlement of nations accused of collaborating with Nazis in USSR after the WW2 (technically can be seen as "ethnic cleansing", also ethnic cleansing that happened in not so distant past in Africa (of White people, in this case - orders from state to surrender and leave property etc, technically may be seen as ethnic cleansing). Resettlement of Germans from some areas of Germany after the defeat in WW2. If somebody modifies laws so that they permit ethnic cleansing it may even be illegal (I'm not saying it's likely to happen, just that it's theoretically possible and has historical precedence). Poison sf 20:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no flying invisible frog alien hypotheticals please. Now, since you are such an expert on WWII history, I'm sure you are aware that the Nazis on trial at Nuremberg were denied using the 'tu quoque' defense. (I won't deign to insult you by explaining what the "tu quoque" defense is since you are such a WWII expert.) In fact, this defense cannot be used in criminal law (although it can be used in civil cases under some circumstances - but then it only applies if the PLAINTIFF did those acts - not just that SOMEONE did those acts. Ok in some cases it can also be where the plaintiff allowed a third party to do those acts - but again, that is CIVIL cases only and not criminal defense.) (again, not legal advice, if you want legal advice see a lawyer - also see disclaimer above) Stick to the Facts 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As we previously agreed, we're not talking about what is legal or illegal in a criminal court, so this is pretty irrlevant whether Nazis were or were not allowed to use something in defense. I'm not acting as an advocate of Nazis here, fortunately, merely as an advocate of SF :). What I'm saying: there're precedents in history when something that can be called "ethnic cleansing" was performed and it wasn't considered illegal by the law the perpetrators were subject to (at least I didn't hear about anybody being convicted for those actions, under either US law or any other kind of law). Even in Africa today, a Black government can just introduce a law to expel White farmers and, here you go, completely legal action. So this means that if somebody argues for ethnic cleansing in some distant and hypothetical future, it's not necessarily to be seen as advocacy of "illegal activity". It may be advocacy of chaning the laws so that it's not illegal activity any more. I'm not claiming that it's realistic or will happen, just pointing out a theoretical possibility. In the light of recent developments, in particular things you said in the new discussion section that you created, I don't know if it's even of any use to continue this discussion. Feel free to either continue or drop it I don't mind any way Poison sf 21:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continue here 9-7-06

There, you should be happy now. There is no implication that any of the posts violate the guidelines or are in themselves illegal. All arguments regarding whether they "advocate or suggest" anything are moot. I've also helped you out by 'decluttering' the overview part of the article since you seemed so concerned about it.

I'm not really so concerned about mention that guidelines are violated or that the posts are illegal. I'm absolutely ok with that as long as stated neutrally. Such a controversial issue usually is handled on wikipedia by quoting some notable third party or mentioning the opinion in a way like "It's alleged" or, like I offered, "Critics argue". Poison sf 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, point is moot now since it's gone. Moving right along... Stick to the Facts 05:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've done you a favor, I expect you to do ME a favor - do not remove any information that cites to good references as described by the wiki guidelines. Look them over - pointing to a thread on your forum is *direct proof* that that thread exists - if it is there and cited, *do not* touch it. Do not introduce anything unless you are prepared to provide a cite. Don't call 'registered user accounts' "members" - they are not. I expect you will follow the wiki guidelines from here on out or I might decide not to be so lenient in the future.

I never did claim that registered user accounts are members so I don't understand why you bother myself with this BS. Is this some sort of insinuation or what? I remember aggreeing to this edit in the very beginning and I see it as pretty inflammatory that something else is apparently insinuated here. Poison sf 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been extremely lenient with you. I was willing to let a lot of very questionable un-cited material stand without references in the spirit of collegiality. If you persist in replacing cited fact with unfounded conjecture and puffery, I'll have to start listening to my conscience a bit more and will remove every shred of unsupported info and non-NPOV - right down to the last letter and bit of punctuation. This is not the first time I've told you this but it is most certainly the last.

If you want to win arguments with a simple wave of the hand and an "irrelevant" or "unoriginal", there is a place for that. But not here. Go back to your fantasy land if that's what you want - here we play by grown-up rules. Stick to the Facts 18:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't "patronize" me, I'm not the person who may be impressed by something like that. I don't take you for an ultimate expert and arbiter of how to edit wikipedia and I find many of your edits questionable myself. Also it would help if you're a bit less pompous. Poison sf 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should work a bit to earn some respect so I won't feel compelled to patronize you. If you think my edits are questionable then I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the guidelines, as I have.
  • I continue to have a serious issue with the section about forum sections (silly wording but I can't help). As a comprehensive summary of all themes and topics of content at Stormfront it's outrageously incomplete and pathetic. As a summary of all issues on Stormfront you've grievances with, it may even be a valuable material (as I said I don't object to having such opinions being mentioned as long as it's covered in a neutral way), but then it shouldn't be dressed up as something describing the forum structure. That's pretty transparent and not fooling anybody. Let's work on ways to neutrally mention the negative things about Stormfront that you think the public must be informed about, without pretending that lumping few of such together is an adequate description of forum's structure and content. There're better ways to do that and ways that I'm in no way objecting to. I'm pretty much ok with mentioning any possible critique of Stormfront as long as it's mentioned in a neutral way (e.g. "critics argue" or "opponents are pointing out" etc. Poison sf 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I'm willing to play along. But let's not include a full laundry list of all 50+ forums. If you feel that I have been unnecessarily biased in the forums I've chosen to hilight, feel free to include some of your own. Which ones do you think show the best face of stormfront? The cooking one, the dating one, what ever you want, be my guest. (but don't forget to provide link...) Stick to the Facts 05:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say either include a more or less complete list if there's a special section about it or drop this altogether. Complete means no less than the list I've included. Though, I wouldn't object if it's shortened a bit by grouping some forums together, in a similar way that international forums were grouped. Maybe some of the forums can be grouped into a single element of the bulleted list called "Socializing" (with forum names in parentheses) etc. Perhaps, something less symplistic and more "academic" looking than a bulleted list with few copy pasted descriptions can be written that would be acceptable, but, at the moment, I don't have any ideas of what that would be and can't invest a lot of time trying to come up with such stuff. Poison sf 20:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically to take it into a more practical domain: I'm moving that to a controversy section, because, objectively, it's just a critique of Stormfront by opponent, not any kind of comprehensive encyclopedical coverage of forums that are available on Stormfront. Thus, the proper place for it is "controversies" or maybe some new "critique" section, if you desire. Poison sf 21:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There is no 'controvery' or 'critique' in simply naming some forums. I don't pass judgment on them. Put your own in but leave mine where they are. Stick to the Facts 05:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. Come on, whom are you're trying to kid with this. That's an obvious critique and belongs to an appropriate section. That can't pass as any kind of a neutral summary of what forums are on Stormfront. "Simply naming some forums" is not encyclopedic. There should be a clear and neutral criteria. I can understand if, for example, numbers of posts / threads are used as a criteria. Or something else that satisfies the policy of neutrality. In that version, the criteria is obviously to select some material that is seen as "damaging". This is a critique... critique is nothing else than just a mention of some traits of something or someone that are seen as bad or negative. Poison sf 20:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved that information (in its essense, a critique) to Controversies. Nothing essential was deleted, if I'm not wrong, except that I reduced redundancy (like multiple references to the same ethnic cleansing thread) and also the revisionist-related information ("the holohoax thread") which I've merged into the forum sections list (because I think it's fair enough and neutral to mention revisionism/denial in the description of the forum called "Revisionism"). Poison sf 21:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • From a quick glance on the recent edits, I can say that some cites don't seem to be supporting the claims in the article. For example, you give a big-boards link as a reference for a claim about the dropping numbers of active members - but where is it supported on bigboards?
Scroll down to the graphs - it is there. Stick to the Facts 05:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't an active members statistic there, or am I missing something?

I agree, there isn't - I changed to active user accounts.
I still fail to see where are active user accounts on Big boards. I see statistics by number of posts, number of members, daily unique visitors, daily page views and online users. Below that, there's a member origin by country pie chart. Do you refer to one of this or is my software playing tricks on me or what? That's the URL I'm using to see it: http://www.big-boards.com/board/339/, as pointed to by the big-boards banner. Poison sf 20:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, that the members have been decreasing is a fact, which is even discussed on Stormfront itself. The number started decreasing approximately when it would be expected, which is several months after the start of summer (because of the definition of what an active member is, the effect from the summer traffic drop is delayed for several months - as long as it takes for the system to note that the user haven't been active).

Sure, although it has been trending downward for longer than that.... and it is September and still not coming up...Stick to the Facts 05:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Prior to the summer and even some time during it there was a stagnation or very mild growth, as far as I remember. I didn't record it anywhere though so I may be wrong. Poison sf 20:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, the number wasn't growing fast even prior to that. It was usually either growing slowly or stagnant. Nevertheless, you need to either improve the reference or change the wording to refer to some stats that are actually monitored by bigboards - say, unique daily users or online users (these stats have declined recently also so it may satisfy your "goals" as well). The wording like "Futhermore" etc is also undesirable there - it's argumentative language useful to "make a point", while, as I once seen it put around here, on wikipedia you're not supposed to be "making points", just stating facts in a neutral and abstract way and summarizing all notable theories and opinions on the matter. Currently I will remove the "active members" claim to "motivate" you to improve it ;). Poison sf 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shucks I don't get to use the tu quoque defense either?  :( LOL I will look at the exact language on the graph and use it word for word Stick to the Facts 05:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing... although it's pretty minor, I mentioned it in edit summary before and mention it again: I don't think that unless you're administrator or a moderator with access to forum internals, you can say who had posted or not posted. This is relating to the passage where it's claimed how many people posted or not posted. What you can reliably say is that no posts or less than so and so posts are SHOWING (or "active", "visible" or any other wording of choice) on the board. Because posts/threads are routinely deleted, even a whole forum was once pulled (Stormfront Germany). It can probably be inferred by anybody from such statistics, that most of those who don't have any posts showing indeed posted nothing or little. But it may be incorrect to say that ALL of those people posted nothing. At the very least it's drawing more from the evidence available that it can back with 100% reliability Poison sf 20:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine most of those without posts are either fake accounts opened by moderators to pump up the number of 'members', or are accounts of 'antis' who had their posts deleted and gave up - but still count toward your total of 'members'.
Not necessarily. Posting public posts outside of open forums is not the only feature an account gives. One can also subscribe to threads for more convenient reading, including email notifications, which is very useful, communicate with members via private messages etc. So I can see why a lot of people could be owning accounts with little or no posts. Or you can even be true. For me there's no way to tell and neither there's for you, I suppose, so it's better to, ahem, "stick to the facts". Poison sf 20:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You must consider that the number of Active Users is, as a general trend, dropping. This means that all of the new accounts being registered are still fewer in number than those who registered 180 days ago and have not returned to the forum since. Since "antis," trolls, fake/joke accounts and multiple accounts by the same people all count toward the now 92,000+ total, the more reliable measure of the members' activity is the Active Members count. There are three different counts which often get confused in these discussions: The total number of registered accounts, the number of those accounts who can be reasonably described as active on the site, and the number of active accounts which belong to true White Nationalists.

Also - I think I took that language out but ill check. Stick to the Facts 05:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC) PS I know who you are now. Does D know which articles you spend your time editing? Does he mind? *grin*[reply]

I'm thrilled! So who am I? And who is the mysterious D? Poison sf 20:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding some of your edit summaries:

  • "No evidence that *most* say they are white nationalists - provide references to back up)" - when removing the claim that most users refer to themselves as white nationalists. LOL, I consider it very funny how you selectively remove "unreferenced" material, when, ironically, nothing it that paragraph at all is referenced. I guess it's pretty difficult to prove how "most" members describe themselves, as I don't know of any such statistic, I'll move it to "popular descriptions" then. Poison sf 21:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I noticed earlier that you had an issue with a claim that Stormfront is the "first site of its kind" or something like that and you said something like "according to site software it's online since 2001". Just so that you know, the current software shows only the date when it was installed. Prior to introduction of vBulletin, it was operating on some less advanced software base. I wasn't even around at that time, but I remember this from reading some articles. I think it's mentioned in some articles listed here (in the article, that is) in the 'External Links' section. I'm not even sure it changes anything, just felt like pointing this out. I'll recheck edit history to see if something related to that edit of yours needs to be restored. Poison sf 21:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "redundant info - should be on the martinlutherking site not here" (your edit summary) - martinlutherking site was MERGED in here few days ago, if you didn't notice. So this information is not redundant. Poison sf 21:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please poison, keep an eye on the page. the introduction gets continously edited and crippled to one sentence. thank you. --83.181.94.32 17:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in a way I do keep an eye on it (it's in my watch list). You can always help yourself :). It would be certainly good. I can't be around all the time. Poison sf 18:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the intro is crippled again..... StickToTheFacts deleted it..--213.101.243.32 12:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put it in my watch list as well....--ExplicitImplicity 14:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's another issue I want to call attention to. Stick to the Facts is pushing this:

The site features forums such as: "Revisionism" [6], featuring a 'stickied' thread titled "The Holohoax Thread" [7]; "Self Defense, Martial Arts & Preparedness" [8], featuring 'stickied' threads titled "What to do (or not do) when the FEDS knock!"[9] and "Free ethnic cleansing manual"[10]; and "Strategy and Tactics"[11]. The website also features a Youth forum[12], featuring a 'stickied' thread featuring an essay that makes a case for an anti-government revolution titled "Why Revolution?"[13] The site contains numerous threads devoted to such topics as ethnic cleansing [14] and anti-government Civil War II military tactics [15].

As an "appropriate" content for the section named "Forums", thus, supposedly, one that would be expected to provide neutral coverage of forum content. In my opinion, this version violates the most important policy - neutrality. It's simply ridiculous to try to pass this as neutral. Totally one-sided and obviously critical POV. If this is neutral, that I don't know what is NOT. I'm also seeking any other comments on this, because of course I could be wrong... If anybody agrees please watch this section too and keep it neutral. If possible try to come up with some compromise version, any suggestions are appreciated. Thanks. Poison sf 21:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you are generally right, this is a bias. but a complete list is also no solution. i am unsure how to treat the problem, but generally stormfront.org is not notable because it is a forum in which white people exchange homemaking tips. this happens everywhere and is absolutely not notable. it would be fair however to introduce one or two sentences like "In addition to the aforementioned, stormfront.org also hosts discussion forums pertaining to less controversial discussions like homemaking and..." ...what the fuck do they talk about ??? i am quite astonished....--ExplicitImplicity 21:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that just mentioning cooking or whatever adequately balances the POV of that passage. I argue that for the section to be NPOV there must be a clear criteria why one or another thread was selected as representative. Selecting the most "controversial" content for a "Forums" section is not neutral. If it was "Controversial topics" section then it would have more sense.
One simple criteria is undiscriminatingly mentioning all forums. I'm of course ready to hear proposals for some other clearly defined and neutral criteria. IMO it's pretty clear that in this particular case (the version above) the criteria is to present a "critique" of Stormfront by summarizing some threads appearing especially bad. Actually, the content for this section originated as "evidence" compiled by 'Stick to the Facts' that Stormfront doesn't enforce guidelines. I argued that this is somewhat POV and offered to move it to Controversies and reword in NPOV way (i.e. something like "Critics argue that guidelines are not enforced because of threads like ...."). Then it's more or less NPOV - a particular point of view and its arguments presented neutrally. I still think that's the best place for this material. But, instead, 'Stick to the Facts' chosen to just remove the claim about not enforcing guidelines, but started to push the remaining information (i.e. some threads compiled to demonstrate his point of view that guidelines are not enforced) as content for a new "Forums" section, pretending that it's encyclopedic and neutral coverage of this issue, which of course it is not. Poison sf 22:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I rewrote the forum-section, have a look at it. the first two sentences are now "The Stormfront White Nationalist Community is an Internet forum. Its motto is "White Pride World Wide". It is a self-described White nationalist website, but it is referred to as a Neo-Nazi group by a variety of media sources[1][2][3][4][5]." I believe this is NPOV and as i gave 5 sources, 1 mainstream (post-gazette), 2 left (nation, dailykos) and 2 right (foxnews,WIPO), clearly verifiable.--ExplicitImplicity 15:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead section is now more or less ok. Forum-section now is much less objectionable than before. Perhaps I'll make some changes later, but for the moment it's an improvement. I have doubts about "anti-government conspiracy", I don't think there was anything clearly conspirational in the thread, but I'll need to check it again thoroughy; also may be it can be expanded here and there. Poison sf 17:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the mention of AOL issue got lost in the flurry of edits... At the moment I'm going to put it back, because, while depending on Stormfront alone as the source is against Wikipedia standarts, stating so in a neutral way (mentioning it as Stormfront's claim) in the controversies section is ok, IMO... Poison sf 17:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue - decreasing active users. Is this kind of statistics available on big-boards? I am trying and trying but still failing to notice it. I don't know if I'm doing something wrong or what. 'Stick to the Facts' previously claimed it's there, but he can't really be trusted. Comments from anybody else would be appreciated. Maybe it's "daily unique visitors" instead what is referred to? Poison sf 17:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More about "anti-government conspiracy" : after reading the thread very carefully, I can say with confidence that it's a very long shot to make such claim. Government is rarely mentioned, though when it is, the descriptions are very negative. But there's no discussion of conspiracy or anything like that. This part has to be reworded to avoid far-fetched stuff like this. Poison sf 18:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Point Of View Violation / Troll

Someone completely dismembered this whole page, destoyed any sembelence of npov that the article had, not to mention removed all images. It was basicly defaced and vandalized and thus should be reverted to an earlier state. --Anonymous
This user sure is screwing up the page: 198.142.19.202
When it comes to hatred, the anti racists have us beat in that department.

We may criticise Blacks and jews, but it is criticism of their behavior and nothing else. I have hundreds of screen shots from websites that call us haters that are filled with the most disgusting hateful comments imaginable. The people who criticise us regularly discuss how much they would like to rape and murder children. I have screen shots of cartoons they have drawn that ridicules the victims of 9/11 and the collapse of the twin towers. I have seen threads written by the so called, "tolerant" people that have more racial epithets in them than all of the threads in Stormfront combined. Alot of these "hate" posts on Stormfront were written by anti racists pretending to be White Nationalists. They like to make posts filled with racial epithets and plans of genocide so that they can post them on their own websites to show how hateful White Nationalists are. This is the same as a jew painting a swastika on his synogog and saying that White supremacists did it.

Here is an example of the hatred coming from a fake White Nationalist. This anti also left a link to hard core pornography with the intention of children seeing it. http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/caleeb/DaKiaser.png --Anonymous

i restored the site to an acceptable state.--ExplicitImplicity 15:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can behaviour by Stick to the Facts be classified as vandalism? I think that he crossed the line after which it's already not a normal dispute over content but a disruptive behavior... If he's vandalizing the article then in countering him one is no longer bound by 3RR rule, though so far I'm not sure, maybe I'm not fully impartial here, so I'll not do more than 3 reverts yet... Poison sf 18:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i placed an 3rr-warning on his/her talk page and invited him/her to talk to us here on the talk page. if he/she continues to delete information from this really well referenced (imho over-referenced) article i believe it is vandalism. but i have no clue on how to report it. *g* no, i have good faith.... *fg* --ExplicitImplicity 19:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Due to extensive deletion of material with cited references - repeatedly - and people reinserting non-NPOV material - repeatedly - I have sometimes been forced to revert even though some valid content had been inserted in the interim. There is a simple way to avoid losing this content - simply follow the wiki rules, do not delete relevant cited information, do not persist in posting non-NPOV statements, do not try to back something up with no more to a cite on your own website saying the same thing you are citing - that is not a valid cite. Please do not 'cherry pick' information - IE don't say that a thread is anti-hitler when 90% of the messages are pro hitler. That is just as inappropriate as saying a Vatican website has pro-satan content because you can cherry-pick a couple of messages from it.

Do not refuse to accept a characterization of something merely because you have your own euphamism for it. Genocide is genocide. I've provided cites to international and US statutory authority and definitions. I don't care if you call genocide "donating to charity" - a spade is still a spade. If you dispute that it is illegal I suggest you contact the Justice Department or the FBI and get their opinion. Until then it stays. Meanwhile, I think I'm going to go look for some more threads along those lines, just to give everyone a better feel for the content on stormfront. Regards, Stick to the Facts 03:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way - someone has a name almost identical to mine with one 'i' replaced with an accented i. I can tell the difference. Stick to the Facts 03:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • sigh* here I am back from fixing some more deleted cites. Ironic that the stormfront guys are the ones who contacted an admin first. Stick to the Facts

Stíck to the Facts is at it again, clearly using a deceptive name to try to get me or someone else to revert to one of his edits. Please do not persist in deleting cited content. If you are having trouble coming to terms with the fact that your site is perfuse with discussion of criminal activity that are the absolutely most abhorrent crimes imaginable, I suggest that rather than try to edit my entries, you get the content off the stormfront website. Cheers, Stick to the Facts 03:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14.09

section for new issues.

  • The demanded source for BBS / "on the internet since 1995" claim is the SPLC report. The footnotes currently assigned numbers 6 and 7 were intended to serve as a reference for two sentences before them. The passage in SPLC report I'm referring to is

Once there, he began dabbling with his computer, eventually setting up a dial-up bulletin board service for the radical right. By March 1995, that service evolved into Stormfront, the Net's best-known hate site.

Perhaps, if it's really causing so much confusion, let's use that reference two times or something. Otherwise 'Stick to the Facts' will continue to refuse reading the primary source articles and repeating "gimme a cite" until he foams at the mouth. This leads to the next point:

  • Footnotes are a friggin mess! Ugly links and many duplicates. I'll try to start working on transforming it into something more comprehensive, utilizing the reference syntax where one item is referred to in several places of the article... I've seen it elsewhere. Also normal captions for those links must be created so that it's not some ugly and incomprehensible glibberish. Poison sf 19:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"Ethnic cleansing" as advocated on the forum and described in the book is punishable by death. Do you not believe that? I have a cite now. Do NOT remove it.

If you doubt the illegality I encourage you to contact the FBI or the DOJ, bring the forum to their attention, and then ask them for a determination. If they say that activity is not illegal then I'll drop it. Otherwise, I have a cite, so it stays. Thanks a bunch. Stick to the Facts 21:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

look, the problem is not, that it is not punishable by death. i believe you that it is, at least in some states. but that is not NOTABLE. that it is illegal is NOTABLE, that it can be punished by death is NOT.

Parking in front of a fire hydrant is illegal. "Ethnic cleansing" is illegal. I think it is not unreasonable to distinguish the two. If the stormfront types are really concerned about this, perhaps they should reexamine the nature of the content on their forum. That will make this unneccesary. I provided a cite, it stays. Stick to the Facts 00:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


the same for your statement referring to Don Black. He is an ex-convivt and dragon-wizard of the KKK. but that is not very important for this site. that is information that should be given, when inquiring about Don Black on Don Black (nationalist). I hope you accept this, or provide your differing opinion here. Thank you, Stick_to.----ExplicitImplicity 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other information about Don Black was uncited and is unaccpetable. The info I cited is. If you really insist on leaving out the ex convict part I will consider it, but ONLY on condition that all uncited content be left out as well. The sentence would then read "The webmaster is Don Black."

To put this matter to rest for good - I am going to actually cut and paste the exact statutory language - the elements of genocide are NOT limited to killing people, it also includes forced migration and other things. What you are discussing on SF clearly includes this. It doesn't matter whether you call it 'ethnic cleansing' or genocide - as long as the elements are met it is genocide no matter what YOU call it. You can call robbing a bank 'tying my shoe laces' but you are still robbing a bank.

The punishment also includes advocating, planning, etc etc. There is no doubt that what is discussed in that forum is talking about activity that is genocide and punishable by death. Again, if you doubt me, go contact the Justice Department and the FBI and ask them what they think.

The definition of genocide and punishment is defined under international treaty and is given effect by US federal statues under 18 USC (ie federal criminal code.) SO in other words, it doesn't matter that the basis is in international law, that law is given the effect of US law (in EVERY part of the US) by the statutes.

The definitions: see http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm

Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide

"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

   (a) Killing members of the group;
   (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
   (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
   (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
   (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:

   (a) Genocide;
   (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
   (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
   (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
   (e) Complicity in genocide. "

See here for a description of the US statutory basis for giving effect to these laws under US law: see http://www.amicc.org/usinfo/us_law.html.

OK, are there any questions? Stick to the Facts 01:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Moved around the forum contents a bit to keep the substantive forums from getting buried underneath the cooking and fishing type forums. Why don't you people want the world to know what your site is about? (*shrug*) Stick to the Facts 02:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed uncited material - also no indication whatsoever given that they are controversial. Stick to the Facts 02:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be REALLY careful when you go around saying "so and so accuses so and so" of something. You cited a home-grown stormfront webpage. There is no evidence such an email was ever sent or that there is any litigation or threat of litigation whatsoever. It doesn't take a genius to realize you'd better think twice before making baseless accusations against anyone (especially when they have billions of dollars in assets.) Stick to the Facts 02:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It isn't hard to cite guys. Uncited material will be delted. Cited and relevant material will stay. Cited but irrelevant material will be deleted. Read the wiki rules please. Stick to the Facts 02:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Removed solicitation for donations, see wiki rules. Stick to the Facts 02:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Don Black's other activities belong on Don Black's article or its own article but it is irrelevant to stormfront.

Removed more unverified, uncited material that people keep putting back in....see the wiki rules please, thanks. Stick to the Facts 04:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic cleansing/death penalty

Let there be no question in your minds, my friends, that the most recent thread I found DIRECTLY ADVOCATES genocide (aka 'ethnic cleansing') I have provided above the legal definition of 'genocide' as used in internation and US statutes. The discussion fits. The possible penalty is the death penalty. (I'm not saying the DISCUSSION is criminal (although it might be in the US and definitely is in some countries) but the activity discussed clearly is.) In case you don't scroll up, this includes moving populations and forcing or coercing the movement of populations - it doesn't necessarily involve murdering anyone.

This stays in unless 1) a wiki admin demands that it be taken out, at which time I will leave it out while I pursue an appeal of the decision to the highest wiki authority 2) the statutes change and it is no longer illegal (lots of luck with that one) or 3) the threads are removed. Even though they are cached by google for all eternity, with your identities a single subpoena away, I will remove the entry here if you remove them from your site. Thanks a bunch, Stick to the Facts 06:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looky looky, found another thread directly advocating and suggesting 'ethnic cleansing.' Stick to the Facts 06:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled upon a nice little poll showing that the most popular choice of SF respondents was ethnic cleansing. You rascals! Stick to the Facts 06:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repairing more vandalism

Let's try to stick with the Wiki rules about cited material (among other things). Stick to the Facts 15:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edit was mine, forgot to log in. More cited content removal without explanation. See wiki rules, thanks a bunch. Stick to the Facts 14:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repaired another revert which removed cited content without explanation. What are you guys trying to hide, everything is also available on google and you can't remove that. Have a nice day, Stick to the Facts 15:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Had to remove another solicitation for donations. 141.156.165.35 15:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Had to remove some irrelevant content. This belongs in another article. I also wrote the last entry. Stick to the Facts 15:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed uncited info - the 'cite' that was provided was merely an unsupported claim to the same information on the stormfront website - that is not a valid cite, please see wiki rules. Thanks, and have a nice day :) Stick to the Facts 15:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

The Three-revert rule (or 3RR) is an official policy which applies to all Wikipedians. 3RR violations are reported here.

The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period. This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day.

To date this rule has been consistently violated on this page. That needs to stop.

Also removing material because it disagrees with your POV is vandalism. This needs to stop. Brimba 16:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. There are repeated removals of cited material. I urge editors to consult the wiki guidelines regarding citations. If have, on occasion, been forced to revert because of frequent vandalism to the article. I have repeatedly told other users that I will not remove valid material that is cited and I expect them to do the same. Some material is not appropriate even if it is cited, however - including soliciting donations, sections that are irrelevant to the subject of the article, etc. This is spelled out in the wiki guidelines. Entries that merely cite the same uncited information on the stormfront website is also inappropriate - see wiki guidelines. Citations to direct evidence (ie a statement that the forum says X with a direct cite to where it says X on the website) are appropriate. Information that mischaracterizes the cited information is inappropriate. Cherry-picking is inappropriate. It is inappropriate to characterize a thread as being anti-Hitler, or to say that Stormfront expresses anti-Hitler viewpoints, merely because it contains one or two anti-Hitler messages if it contains dozens of other pro-Hitler messages. This is like saying the Vatican website contains satanic threads or that the Vatican expresses satanic viewpoints just because there is a smattering of such posts.
Just because you call something 'ethnic cleansing' does NOT mean that it also isn't genocide, no moreso than calling a homicide a 'friendly chat' makes it not homicide. If the activity satisfies the elements of 'genocide', it is genocide - no matter what you call it. I have included numerous citations to the legal definitions and statutory basis for the crime of genocide in both international AND US federal law. I have also included cites to several threads advocating genocide on the stormfront forums. Genocide is not limited to killing, and the crime is not limited to actually performing the activity. It also includes forced removal of individuals. It also includes "(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group". Merely planning it etc can lead to a conviction, even if no affirmative acts have been undertaken. I have also included the text of the relevant statutes above, please refer to them for more information.
Here's to a future unbiased and fact-supported Stormfront article. Regards, Stick to the Facts 16:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited out unsupported and uncited info. How do you define a stormfront "member"? How do you know what the majority think - has a statistically relevant poll been taken? If so please cite, along with how 'membership' is determined. Stick to the Facts 17:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Repaired vandalism by Stíck to the Facts - note that name is different from mine. Stick to the Facts 18:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Fixing more vandalism by Poison SF. No reasoning given for removing material with citations to direct proof. Stick to the Facts 19:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


More vandalism, request moderator to block editing for people repeatedly removing cited content - particularly when done without explanation. Please consult wiki guidelines, thanks. Stick to the Facts 19:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]