Talk:Stormfront (website)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Stormfront (website) was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Websites / Computing  (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Discrimination (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
e·h·w·Stock post message.svg To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Expand : Identify unused relevant coverage in existing references
  • Infobox : Take an acceptable screenshot of the site's homepage
  • NPOV : Identify specific sections and claims that misrepresent sources
  • Verify : Find additional reliable sources to use as references


Original Research[edit]

In the Controversies section:

"A link to the poll was posted on Stormfront and messages subsequently posted there implied that a mass of readers had duly voted in order to skew the poll in favor of segregation."

The source does not mention a link to the poll, or the intention to imply that a mass of readers had duly voted. It seems to be OR. Achinoam (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Violet Jones[edit]

I'd be surprised if she meets our criteria for notability (which does not mean she isn't a WP:RS.[1] So, no red link now. Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I'd be surprised too. She is an associate professor that doesn't seem to meet WP:SCHOLAR. Ditto with Harris.Niteshift36 (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

POV[edit]

This article seems strongly biased. It's as if the Coke article was mostly sourced from anti soft drink organizations. WP:BIASED recommends to at least use quotes if a source seems biased. I think that at least some other editors agree that it looks biased. I gather that from the fact that so many sources are given for the first three adjectives: it means that people contest them. Politics, philosophy, religions are topics where people strongly take side and opinions shouldn't be turned into absolute truths. For example, the source http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2005/summer/electronic-storm uses acerbic and sarcastic language which suggests that it's not a neutral source (it doesn't mean it's invalid). In particular, the line "Details of yet another nefarious Jewish conspiracy" is sarcastic unless the splcenter suggests that there are actually nefarious Jewish conspiracies.Ne Yorker (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain in what way you think the article is biased. Your only example is that the SPLC is used as a source. But that is actually a issue of reliable sourcing. TFD (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
At least some of the sources are ideological opponents. SPLC, Anti-Defamation League, Jewish Journal, activist Raphael Cohen-Almagor... Don't you think that an organization fighting hate speech defines itself as having a strong bias against a hate site? The issue is not if the sources are reliable or biased but if opinions are distinguished from facts (quotes, in-text attribution). Ne Yorker (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs (what most of this article is about). Ne Yorker (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Yep, thats what the policy says. Is there anything in particular you consider ought to have in text attribution?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is something in particular: the text lead. "Stormfront is a white nationalist, white supremacist and neo-Nazi internet forum" could be rewritten as "Stormfront is an internet forum variously described as white nationalist, white supremacist and/or neo-Nazi". Ne Yorker (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing the bias. Maybe some specificity would help. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The fact that Stormfront is a white nationalist, white supremacist, neo-Nazi, racial hate site, is well sourced, neutral, and not in doubt. Is there a specific proposal for improvement? If not, then the tags should be removed. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I question your neutrality. You mostly edit race-related pages [white privilege, race (human classification), caucasian race, race and genetics, nations and intelligence) or political (gun control). You also add the ADL as source (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_control&diff=prev&oldid=595508530). Why? Are you an activist? Ne Yorker (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes. It's always the same tag team of anti-White editors on every page. 211.169.83.67 (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • And then an IP with no other edits comes in and tells us the "real truth" Niteshift36 (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't speak for the others, but if your first inclination is to start making allegations about being an activist, then I'm inclined to avoid the rush and start disregarding you now. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the pov template. Not something a new editor should add to an article, and Ne Yorker clearly doesn't understand or agree with our policies. Dougweller (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not "anti-white" to question the notion that blacks are inferior. (And WP, being neutral, must not try to promote ANY viewpoint on the issue) mike4ty4 (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
"Welcome to Stormfront" says, "We are White Nationalists...." How is it biased to call them that? TFD (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
No but about 500 reliable sources claim that they are. Bias would be to only include their own view of what they are and exclude what everybody else thinks they are.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
And how do we discern whether those "500 reliable sources" (only 13 of the purported which appear in the references) are not biased themselves? Any source can state an opinion about what they think something is. That doesn't make it indisputable fact. 2602:306:C4EF:2BA0:5076:566F:FA8C:F2A2 (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Our sources are not required to be neutral. WP:NPOV specifies that we, as editors, must be "neutral" by sticking to the sources. And that's what we've done here.   — Jess· Δ 14:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Homicide[edit]

According to this report[2] by SLPC since 2009 more than 100 "bias related" homicides have been carried out by stormfront users. Might be worth including.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

77 of those 100 murders were commited by Anders Breivik, who was banned from StormFront after posting a few times on the forums.108.21.6.117 (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Stormfront owner : Breivik was banned from Stormfront 3 years before his killings[edit]

According to Don Black (Stormfront owner) :

We did have a user account in 2008 which probably belonged to Breivik, but he only posted four times before being banned. He never even tried to come back after that (even banned users can log in, showing up on our records). [...] In fact, his closest confederate was Jewish radical Hans Rustad. Just before his murderous attack, Breivik wrote:

   "We must influence other cultural conservatives to take our anti-racist, pro-homosexual, pro-Israeli line of thought. When this direction is taken, we can take to the next level."

The SPLC also included the names of other murderers who had long been previously banned from Stormfront. They also threw in another particularly horrendous nutcase, Buford Furrow, who shot into a Jewish daycare center in 1999. He had never posted on Stormfront.

Our moderators and I have repeatedly posted that we will not tolerate any advocacy or even suggestion of illegal violence. We are diligent in removing such whenever we find it, and we want to help visitors understand fully how horrifically damaging this is to our efforts. And we work to provide a safe, supportive community for those who join us.

Don Black's Guidelines for Posting since 1995:

DO NOT advocate or suggest any activity which is illegal under U.S. law.

Before you post anything, remember that words have consequences, both for you and others. This is true even if they're posted pseudonymously on a discussion board.

Don't post anything you wouldn't want attributed to you in a court of law, quoted on the front page of the New York Times, or read by your mother. [...] Interestingly, the SPLC has inspired terrorism itself, including one murderous attack by a "gay rights" terrorist against the Family Research Council last year, which the SPLC had designated a "hate group" because it opposed same-sex marriage.

Pleading guilty to the charges, Corkins told the FBI after the shooting he intended to "kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-fil-A sandwiches in victims’ faces." Prosecutors said that Corkins planned to leave FRC after the attack and go to another conservative group to continue the reign of terror. A handwritten list of three other groups was found with Corkins’ belongings. An investigation of Corkins’ computer found that he identified his targets on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website. [...] Source : https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1036143/?postcount=1#post12038498 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurent de Lyon (talkcontribs) 11:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine, then we can discuss quoting Black using one of the independent sources, not the one you tried to use several months ago. Breivik was a user at one point, and may have continued to read and even edit under a different name. Sadly we block people here who manage to continue to edit. But the material you removed is sourced to several mainstream media outlets and should not have been removed. The Corkins murder has nothing to do with the Stormfront website so is irrelevant here. Doug Weller (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • As Doug Weller said, being banned doesn't mean he wasn't still a user. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
He was still a registered user, which is all the article says. However I find the coverage of this topic in the article implicit synthesis. It implies a connection between reading Stormfront and terrorism, without saying what it is. If we have a expert who explains what connection s/he sees, we should put that in and can include Black's rebuttal. TFD (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I disagree - the article does not say that there's a connection between reading Stormfront and terrorism. It doesn't even say that Stormfront users are terrorists. It simply states a fact - that a handful of murderers, including at least one mass murderer, that committed so-called "hate crime" murders, were Stormfront users. It's not an opinion, and frankly, I'm surprised that anyone finds the inclusion of that fact controversial. If anything, not including that paragraph could be construed as a form of censorship; ie, not wanting the truth about these individuals being drawn to a white power website on the page. Rockypedia (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller, you said we can discuss quoting Black using one of the independent sources. I suggest this one :

[...]Don Black, a former Ku Klux Klan member and the founder of Stormfront, told ABCNews.com the Southern Poverty Law Center's report was "ludicrous" and said the number of murdered was inflated because they included Breivik, who he said posted only a few times on the site before he was banned.

"There are any number of websites who have had murderers come through their ranks," Black said, naming several popular social media and online personals websites.

"We have had a few people who have gone on shooting sprees. Most were domestic issues that didn't have anything to do with politics," Black said.

Frazier Glenn Miller, the man who allegedly killed three people outside two Jewish sites in Kansas last weekend, posted more than 12,000 times on a different racist web forum, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Miller was charged this week with one count of capital murder and a second count of premeditated first degree murder. He has not yet entered a plea.

Black, who said he knows Miller from decades ago, said he wasn't welcome on the Stormfront website since he became a "government informant" in exchange for a plea deal and testified against several white supremacists at a 1988 sedition trial.

"He was certainly unwelcome and I couldn't imagine why he would think he is welcome. He was a big time government informant," Black said. "He wouldn’t have been allowed to post the stuff he had [on VNN] on our board."

Stormfront is staffed with moderators, Black said, who "do not tolerate illegal violence, even the suggestion of illegal violence."

"Anybody who says anything like that gets shown the door," he said.

Black said his website is a place for white nationalists to "discuss the truth as we see it" and if anything, may act as a deterrent.

"The kind of people that are more likely to go out and do something and go on a shooting spree are by themselves typically," he said. "If they become part of our community they are less likely to do something because they have a support group.

Source : http://abcnews.go.com/US/stormfront-website-posters-murdered-100-people-watchdog-group/story?id=23365815 Laurent de Lyon (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Far, far too long and clearly self-serving. Of course Black said that. He's not going to admit that Stormfront incites racial violence. Or that it tolerates racial slurs, eg this reply to an anti-racist:"Jesus is going to cast traitors like you into Hell along with all the evil savages who ever dared to beniger his people." Or [3] - loads of posts attacking Jews, from "jews double-park all the time" to "seems the judes have finally started to wear out their welcome and people are getting sick of them." Or [4] where the poster substitutes 'Jews' for 'News'. This is why we don't take Black's word for it, and in fact the article should not state as fact that "Stormfront keeps the rhetoric in its forums muted, discourages racial slurs, and prohibits violent threats and descriptions of anything illegal," It certainly allows loads of racial slurs. Doug Weller (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Indeed as I said the article does not say there's a connection between Stormfront and terrorism, it implies it. If it does not, then why mention it? If we could determine that most mass murderers had at one time or another eaten carrots, would you add it to that article? TFD (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I would, if you could find a reference that their carrot-eating was higher than that of the general population. But this is an article about a particular website with a very narrow purpose, so more to your point, if Stormfront was a website that attracted people that were either very anti- or pro-carrot-eating, I would include the fact that most users ate carrots as well. Even more to the point, killing people based on their race or religion, especially killing more than one person at a time, is a character trait that is not shared by very many people, while most people have eaten carrots. So from any angle, your analogy is hopelessly flawed.Rockypedia (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
You would still need to explain the connection. For example, some editors find it significant that Jews were "over-represented" in Communism, Hollywood, banking, the slave trade, etc., while blacks over over-represented in criminal activity, and add it to those articles. While not explicitly saying it is because Jews and blacks are evil, it conveys that implicit message. It is implied synthesis, which is contrary to policy. TFD (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Again, I don't think that analogy holds, because Communism, Hollywood, etc. don't have some central message about Jews. The Stormfront website is there to provide a gathering place for people who believe the white race is superior to other races - so the fact that there's been hate crimes committed by registered members of the site is certainly notable. With regard to blacks being over-represented in criminal activity, there's evidence that that's because of police officers over-arresting them, and plenty of other factors, and yeah, I would actually note all of those facts in an appropriate place, with references. Rockypedia (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Stormfront view of the world and what they want can be read in their introduction for new Stormfront members :

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t968576/

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t968583/

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t968594/

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t968596/

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1001939/

Unlike Breivik, Stormfront doesn't support Israel. That's why I still don't understand the association with Stormfront. In Europe, pro-Israeli extreme right-wing leaders (such as Geert Wilders) believe in Eurabia stuff, a vision not shared by Stormfront.

Laurent de Lyon (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Stormfront doesn't support Israel, so Breivik must not be influenced by Stormfront. That's a nice strawman. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
And as I've shown above, what Stormfront wants the world to think about it and its posters, and the actual posts on it, are quite different. It appears that User:Laurent de Lyon either doesn't understand this - or is perhaps a user? Doug Weller (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stormfront (website). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Fraktur font[edit]

Regarding this: "The site's logo is written in the Fraktur font." I thought that was odd because we show an image captioned "Stormfront's logo" that is obviously not Fraktur. The cited sources says "The home page, in Fraktur font..." but that seemed even more unlikely, as Fraktur is pretty much unreadable. I checked the site itself and got a blank page. The Wayback Machine snapshot from January 2015 (when the cited source was published) shows two logos, the one we have, and the one in the info box at the top of this article, which does indeed use Fraktur. Since the cited source is wrong, I thought the best thing would be to just say "The site uses the Fraktur font" and leave it at that. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Far right politics category[edit]

Removing this category because of sock puppetry is bureaucracy run amok. Is there another reason not to include it?That man from Nantucket (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm not going to answer on my talk page and here, so I removed it from my talk page. You waited a whole 35 minutes before declaring I've refused to answer. Try a little good faith. The category has been removed by enough different editors that it merits an actual discussion on this page. So let's try that, huh? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you might have responded here first, as I assume you saw my question? No matter now, water under the bridge. Why has it been removed? The only reason that I've seen so far has been that it was added by a sock. If there is another, I'd like to know the reason why. It seems like it is an appropriate category.That man from Nantucket (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 35 minutes dude. Chill out. I made other edits in the interim to other articles. My sole purpose here is not to jump when you tell me to jump. The category is far right politics. What political activities in this article merit including it in that category? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Show some common courtesy the next time someone asks a question instead of reverting and moving on. To quote Wikipedia's definition of "far right politics", to whit According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, in liberal democracies, the political Right opposes socialism and social democracy. Right-wing parties include conservatives, Christian democrats, classical liberals, nationalists and, on the far Right, racists and fascists. Yes, I think that fits the definition of Stormfront quite nicely, and any claim to the contrary is myopic. That man from Nantucket (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Common courtesy? No room for you to even say that phrase. So, on to the actual topic. Nice dictionary definition, but my question was not what does far right mean. My question is: What political activities in this article merit including it in that category? Merely believing something may not be enough. If it isn't acted on in a significant way, what makes it any different from including someone in a category about chefs because they microwave a Hot Pocket. Both prepare food, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah this definitely isn't the right way to go about things. That being said, if the submitter ever calms down and does this the right way, I would be in favor of including that category. It's appropriate, IMO. Just my two cents. But first, learn how to use Wikipedia. Rockypedia (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
The right way? I am doing things the right way. I posted a question here asking for a discussion yet there are a few editors, an admin included, who seem more intent on fucking with a human being who is socking by giving them the silent treatment than working on the actual article. Is that how Wikipedia is supposed to work? I think not. Regardless, I do thank both you and Nighshift36 for at least acknowledging the actual subject of this section, though your support for the category shouldn't be conditional on my Wikipeida education. If there is no objection here, I will add the category back in. However I will wait a reasonable period for others to voice their opinions. That man from Nantucket (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you posted a question here, and waited mere minutes before losing your composure over lack of immediate response. No, you're not doing things the right way (hint, coming to my page after a few minutes threatening to "escalate" things if I don't immediately respond isn't doing things the right way). And no, the matter is being discussed, so you shouldn't restore anything yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is you reverted me without bothering to to answer one of two queries, without even as much as an edit summary. Maybe you thought I was the sock? That is the only reason I can think of that would explain your behavior. But enough with the finger pointing. This article on Stormfront clearly mentions political figures are members as well as the organization being mentioned in several political "events", not to mention the infobox that states this article is "Part of the Politics and elections and Politics series on Neo-fascism. Even a simple search yields several RS mentioning Stormfront in this context. What would convince you this category is applicable? I've asked myself the exact opposite question, and for the life of me I can't find anything to the contrary.That man from Nantucket (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm done listening to you bitch about the revert. Give it a rest. I see the article mentioning political figures, but that still isn't answering my question. Saying that they gained members when Obama was elected isn't political activity. The owner of the site personally donating $500 (a fairly insignificant sum) to a failed candidate isn't evidence of the website engaging in political activity. Gaining traffic during an election isn't evidence of the website engaging in political activity. This article is about THE WEBSITE. The website is just a forum for racists to talk to each other. They may express political opinions on there that are far right, but the website itself (the actual subject of the article) hasn't really engaged in political activities. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

SNOW CLOSE:

(non-admin closure) Full disclosure: came here through the help desk, on which the nominator posted.

Only 6 days, but no activity for 4. None has explicitly supported the "oppose" side, and the oppose argument seems to be that people simply discussing is not political activity. The general opinion seems to view that argument as pilectomic (frankly, hard to not agree). More importantly, sources describing the subject as far-right have gone uncontested - and whether reliable sources are wrong or not is (almost) not our business. Add the category.

It seems to me that a lot of noise was made out of nothing because two editors were somewhat stressed. Chill down, and follow the BRD standard before escalating issues in the future. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this article be added to the category Far-right politics in the United States? That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Support It should be apparent from reading the article that Stormfront, among other things is associated with far-right politics. There are a multitude of reliable sources stating this, such as this one and this one. That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Undecided: Since this article is about the website, I think we should see some direct connection for actual political activities by the site. The 2 sources mentioned above talk about right wing, but fail to make the connection to political activity beyond registered users talking to each other. Merely having a forum for people to discuss it doesn't seem like "politics" to me. Also, I think this is too early for a RFC. We've had less than a day of discussion. Someone here is impatient. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion Political activity isn't confined to 'standing for office' or engaging in mainstream politics. There are numerous refs in the article to political positions that are wholly 'far-right'. The argument against seems wholly semantic. Pincrete (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • What argument against is that? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
That a 'forum for discussion' can't be political, what is being discussed on the forum? Flower arranging? Cookery? A newspaper can be described as 'just discussing', does that mean that the newspaper doesn't have a political position? But RS is the killer argument for me. Pincrete (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Except that I've made no real argument against in the RFC. I clearly (and in bold print) said I was undecided and have asked if there was more evidence about activity beyond users talking to each other. You took it upon yourself to declare my questions and request to be an argument against. Yes, much of the discussion on there is political. Some of it is not.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Off topic
I was referring to the discussion above as much as the RfC. If there isn't disagreement, why is there an RfC? Pincrete (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Why is there a RFC? That's a very good question. A single editor decided that we needed one after less than 24 hours of discussion. I asked him the couple of questions I've asked in this and he avoided them, choosing instead to open a RFC, which is a much slower process than simply having a discussion and gaining consensus. Then, the OP said he'd wait a "reasonable amount of time", which amounted to about 6 hours before opening a RFC. So please, don't blame my asking a couple of questions for the fact that we have a RFC. This is because of impatience. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I started the RfC because not due to impatience, but mostly to seek other opinions. I'm perfectly aware that RfCs take longer, but the level of antagonism and condescending tone was being ratcheted up to a point that I felt only an RfC would ameliorate.That man from Nantucket (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • You mean the tone that went straight downhill when you popped a blood vessel because it took 35 minutes to answer you? Then you turned around and waited a whole 6 hours for this. Oh, you're plenty impatient my friend. WP:3O would have probably been a better choice. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I suppose I shouldn't reply, but I'll go against my better judgment on this subject one last time. After this I shan't respond unless it's about this article. WP:BRD is how content disagreements are supposed to be handled. I had opened the section above and you reverted the article content without even the courtesy of a reply. Not even a "I'll reply later", and when I asked on your talk page, you removed my question without even an edit summary saying you intend to respond. No reply or even an indication you would reply, yet you had time to make several other unrelated edits (and you have the gall to call me impatient???) Here's some unsolicited advice for you, since you seem to be keen on dishing it out. If you don't have the time to discuss an edit, don't make the edit in the first place.That man from Nantucket (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 35 minutes. And don't talk about BRD. That had been removed multiple times before you jumped in. We were past the B and the R. You just skipped the D part. Yes, I'm calling you impatient. The fact that you are so concerned that I didn't immediately jump to your question and actually attended to something else first supports that. Here's some unsolicited advice for you: Discuss more than a day before opening a RFC. Or actually, just discuss period. Most of your "discussion" in that brief few hours before you jumped straight to RFC was bitching whining about the fact that I didn't immediately answer your demands. So, impatient.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support It is one of the major websites used by the U.S. far right. Also, agree with Pincrete. Far right politics is not just about fielding candidates, but covers other activities as well. TFD (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • But wouldn't politics at least have some activity beyond talking? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Not necessarily. That seems like an arbitrary line to draw. Rockypedia (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I've been to the forums at that site and read what the regular users have to say. I suggest anyone weighing in on this debate do the same (it's free, easy, and you don't have to register). It's fair to say that the clear majority of the discussions there are political, and that virtually all of the people discussing politics come at every issue from a far-right perspective. Granted, that's a primary source, but it's conclusive, complete, and convincing. I'm pretty sure I could find a reliable secondary source or several that talk about what's going on there. I see no reason that category shouldn't be added. Rockypedia (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest using TOR or some anonymizer service. Visiting that site might get you on a list of some sort. I'd also warn you that you might feel like you lost a little bit of your soul after doing so.That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
So true. I've had first-hand experience. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Obviously belongs in that category. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Looking at what pages are in the category, this article clearly fits. It's a forum for far right political commentary and discussion. It's a notable one as well, having been in the news for its far right association. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.