Talk:Stormfront (website)/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Content Section

Stormfront does not use "PROPOGANDA". Propoganda has a negative connotation. I request it be removed for a less biased word. Also, Stormfront does not "hide" it's intentions. We are very open about our beliefs. Please fix immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaedra (talkcontribs) 20:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

  • What word do you suggest to replace it with? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Doesn't hide it's intentions? I think it's very obvious that the users do hide their intentions. Take a look at the majority of posts or user's signatures in the forums: many of them express disdain for people of other races, either by pointing to undesireable qualities held by other races, quoting expressions about how (for example) Jews are involved in conspiracies to eliminate the white race, expressing admiration of Nazi policies, etc. The obvious impression is that the users at Stormfront are white supremacists and hate people of other races, yet when asked if they're a hate site, they somehow have the gall to play ignorant ("What hate? What stereotypes?" users will ask). The impression Stormfront gives is that it is very obviously a hate site, but users will insist that it is not. Thus, they are making incredible attempts to hide their intentions. I don't think this is really disputable. Anyone who looks at the site can plainly see the expressions of hate, yet users will deny that there is any hatred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda definition from information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. 2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc. Holocaust denial, rants about how the Jews control the media, references to stupid sites like "Jewwatch" (seriously, you expect anyone to think that's an unbiased source of information), statements about how Jews and Blacks are prone to bad behaviour and plots to hurt whites aren't propaganda? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

  • You forgot to keep reading.....definition #3 is: "the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement." That fits the use here pretty well. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes. Plus, if you actually sign up and try posting in their forums, each post is pre-moderated and they don't allow people to post anything that does not meet agree with their ideology. I tried to engage them in a serious discussion about how they could possibly claim that the holocaust never happened and not one of my posts got through. Dissent from their beliefs is not allowed, except in a subset of forums, where dissent is ridiculed. Also, when their users make statements about how Jews control the media, the resource they cite is "Jewwatch" (as though any reasonable person would expect that to be an unbiased source). Clearly, propaganda and censorship are tools that they use to suppress ideological subversion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean?

"Stormfront has been the subject of controversy after being removed from French and German Google indexes, for targeting an online FOX News poll on racial segregation, and for having as one of its members a candidate for political office from a major political party." Is it suggesting that Google pulled this site from it's index for "for having as one of its members a candidate for political office from a major political party"? That doesn't really make sense. e.g. Most politicians seem to have their websites indexed by Google. Some clarification would be nice. (It also seems like the grammar of the sentence could be reworked)... Ok, I get it now. It still seems like it could lead to some confusion :) Setitup (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

I'm seeing an edit war going on between Jpgordon and an IP user here . I'm in agreement with the IP user. The edit of the IP user has the sentence read less subjectively and more objectively. (talk) 07:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

As a fan of WP:AVOID and hating hippies, I see what you are saying. In regards to your edit summary though, it is his personal take on things. There is also a similar thing up above that is not addressed "The site received considerable attention in the United States, such as in, a 2000 CBS/HBO documentary television special which focused on the perceived threat of white nationalist and white supremacist organisations on the Internet." So if you want to fix both that is something to consider. If not w"hat he considers" means the same thing but might be less shocking semantically since it further addresses it being attributed to him.Cptnono (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Edit war? The IP made a change. JPGordon reverted it. That's it. "Edit war" seems a bit alarmist. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Err... I must have misread the reversions. I thought Jpgordon was reverting the edit to 'the' from 'perceived' but it was actually the IP user that was doing that and vandalizing the article. My apologies all. (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Error when trying to preview

I get an error when trying to preview changes to the entire article page, but not if I am only previewing a section. This makes it impossible to change the intro. Lumenos (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this possibly related to supposed service outages that are being "reported" here -> ? Lumenos (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Great reason why Wikipedia is a terrible website anymore

There are lists "proving" it a hate/neo-nazi website yet these "sources" fail to qualify their accusations. Think about it. When you go to SF it alleges to be a "White Nationalist" website. That is from the horse's mouth. But what about neo-nazi? SF never claimed it, some of the member are neo-nazis but not only are they not the majority there are others who condemn them who are white NATIONALISTS. At the very mosts it is a white nationalist website with members who are neo-nazis. At most. And ADL sources; seriously? We'll talk about neutrality on Wikipedia all the time but that's because most of the time it works for us.

Seriously, if we can't be honest when writing these articles what is the point of Wikipedia? Answer: there is none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You might have a point is we were basing it on the ADL. But we're basing it on the SPLC, the Univ. of AZ, the Daily Telegraph etc. Niteshift36 (talk)
The IP still has a point. WP:LABEL is a problem on this and other articles. Why do we need to apply a contentious label in the first sentence? There is no argument that it is white nationalist (from what I can tell) so that is fine. However, neo-nazi is disputed. We also all know that the media has a tendency to be sensationalist and does not have Wikipedia's strict and needed neutrality standards. An easy fix is to have the second line in the lead be "It is often described as a neo-nazi..." or something. Then Wikipedia would not be applying the label but giving the description the prominence it deserves.Cptnono (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
This as been discussed at great length. The overwhelming consensus was what we currently have. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
And people keep on complaining about it so it is a good thing that consensus can change. Can you provide a policy based reasoning on the label to be applied in the first line instead of being handle slightly different in the second line?Cptnono (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Since Stormfront doesn't openly admit that they're a neo-Nazi website you think that all of Wikipedia sucks.? That's just idiotic. Stormfront won't acknowledge that they obviously love Nazism because they fear repercussions. How do you justify saying that it's "at the very most a white nationalist website with members who are neo-nazis??" You object to this article claiming that Stormfront is a neo-nazi website even when it can cite references backing that claim up, yet I sincerely doubt that you could justify your assertion that any particular member of Stormfront is a neo-nazi. The website appeals to neo-Nazi's for a reason: the beliefs and ideas exchanged on Stormfront are consistent with Nazism. Stormfront denies being neo-nazi because that would be bad for their already poor public image (see for example, Warman v. Kouba, 2006 CHRT 50 - 2006-11-22 - Canadian Human Rights Tribunal — Federal: one poster talks about how he doesn't want white nationalism publicly associated with neo-nazism). Stormfront has an entire forum dedicated to "revision" - that is, the discussion about how the holocaust (allegedly) didn't happen. You'll find many of these discussions involve obvious admiration of Hitler's desire to get Jews off "Aryan" lands and how the holocaust was really a hoax and is an example of the kind of lies and deception that Hitler knew the jews were capable of and used to manipulate world politics. In particular, the *obvious* admiration of Adolf Hitler and the ideals of the Nazi regime expressed by many posters on stormfront is the best evidence that Stormfront is a neo-nazi website (I think it is OBVIOUS to anyone who reads the site that it is a neo-nazi website - how anyone can try denying this is beyond me). People post on Stormfront regularly because they identify with others who post there and like you said, many of those who post there are neo-nazis. That's precisely the reason that they're posting on the site: they want to talk with other neo-nazis and talk about how bad the jews are or how blacks are ruining civilization. To say that Wikipedia is a bad resource because of the claim that Stormfront is a neo-nazi website really just suggests that you would also rather not have "white nationalism" associated publicly with neo-nazism. I'm curious, you claim that the "sources" (there is no reason to put sources in quotes, they ARE sources) don't "prove" that Stormfront is a neo-nazi website. Have you looked at absolutely everything on those sites? (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC) A white guy who's ashamed of the idiots at Stormfront.
The label is one thing, (clearly, clearly racist), but there are conditions which must be met to be neo-nazi. As far as adherence to nationalistic socialism, anti-communist sentiment, fascistic ideologies, or anti-capitalism, the question should be whether or not the contributions that make up the forum are supportive of those ideas. I don't know that they are or are not, but if I had to guess, it's probably just some racist people saying racist things, with very few posts outlining the problems of capitalist structures. Racism in itself is not NSDAP, and even a claim to NSDAP affiliation cannot simply be taken as proof. That second part has two connotations, both that if I were to claim neo-nazi membership, it wouldn't just be valid in virtue of the claim, but would require some kind of evidence, AND that if the SPLC claims it, it isn't true just because they've said it. The SPLC happens to be very on the ball, so I imagine if they've claimed it, it wasn't out of the blue. Can anyone direct me to evidence of genuine Nazi components of belief? I don't doubt that they exist, but both sides seem to be looking for this. It's potentially in these many pages of history here... (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
As Wikipedia editors, our job is just to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. We should not make determinations based on our own theories. that said: [].   Will Beback  talk  03:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe if this is continuing to come up it is still a problem. Good thing we have an easy solution. Too bad established editors don't want to implement it.Cptnono (talk) 07:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Which solution? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Removing it as a label in the first line and spelling it out clearly in the second line. This is inline with WP:LABEL. Cptnono (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there's really an ongoing problem with the article. I think what's fairly obvious is that we have an occasional neo-Nazi visiting this talk page as an IP and claiming the he and his neo-Nazi friends are not really neo-Nazis. Best way to respond to that is to do nothing. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a neo-nazi and I see a problem with it. I kind of feel for those guys in this circumstance since their socially unacceptable beliefs causes Wikipedia editors to disregard NPOV (again, see LABEL). This isn't the only article it has been a problem on.Cptnono (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think WP:NPOV actually supports you in this case. As far as I know, there are no reliable sources that dispute these descriptions/labels. Jayjg (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Then "use in-text attribution" is required per that guideline. But instead: There is no dispute that it is white nationalist. However, if the site denies that it is the other two then there is no reason to apply the label like that. Simply say "Stormfront is a white nationalist Internet forum. It is often considered white-supremacist and neo-Nazi." There is zero way anyone can dispute that line.Cptnono (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
"In-text attribution" is forbidden here, because it would imply "apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority". See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Explanation of the neutral point of view . And practically speaking it would be ridiculous anyway. Would you write "According to source1, source2, source3, source4, source5, source6, source7, source8, source9, source10, source11 and source12, Stormfront is white supremacist"? Jayjg (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
In text attribution would be ridiculous but it would actually be inline with the standards. Alternatively, it could be simply written as "It is often called...". It would address the concern below. It keeps on coming up when it is an easy fix.Cptnono (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This Page is biased

Hey, not sure if you guys noticed but the SPLC is not a neutral source. They are on opposite sides of the idealogical spectrum and have clear and obvious reliability issues when it comes to being biased/unbiased. ~D2525 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you noticed, but saying the SPLC is not a reliable source on the subject of Stormfront is a little like saying the FBI is not a reliable source on Dillinger. It has no reliability issues at all on this subject and if you think it does, you'll have to show an example of something they got wrong. There's no reason not to use that source in this article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
That's like saying that the United Kingdom is a racist country because different peoples views are allowed and free to be aired (at least for now...). Whether or not Black was a KKK member etc etc etc is irrelivent, that's like saying that because a criminal sets up a forum discussing crime, that it's a site that JUST promotes crime.

The fact that there are lots of citations calling Stormfront a Nazi organisation and such is also a ridiculous reason for Wikipedia to state such an idea as fact, rather than the article being written as: "many organisations consider Stormfront racist... etc". If lots of Nazis, KKK members, Muslims, Christians, Atheists, or whoever, made websites and statements online claiming that a Jewish forum was a Semite supremacy website would that mean Wikipedia would state that as fact aswell?
There are pleanty of citations that state Golliwogs and other visual stereotypes as racist; that doesn't make such accusations fact.
If there were 18 citations saying/suggeting Adolf Hitler was a nice guy, would Wikipedia start off the article saying "Adolf Hitler was a nice Austrian bloke who loved his dog Blondi."? No? I didn't think so.

Having been on Stormfront to read some bitsnbobs a while back, I can say that it is full of Nazis and other such people; however, not everyone on there is, as far as I'm aware; nor does the site itself actively promote such things - Black, moderators and other members may, but to say Stormfront is a Nazi site is like saying Islam is against freedom, despite there being pleanty of Muslims who aren't. People are individuals: there are people on Stormfront who are just members because they hate the double standards that work against white people in todays Western societies; I expect this article is included in their lists of such doublethinks. --Kurtle (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what your point is by asking a rhetorical question about Hitler. The question is clearly irrelevant. I think it's pretty clear if you've read Stormfront that it is a neo-Nazi website. You admit that it's full of neo-Nazi's. Just because the administration is careful about trying not to look like a hate site doesn't mean that they don't advocate neo-Nazi ideology. Even if many of the stormfront posters hate what they consider double-standards, that doesn't change the primary vision and ideology of the website. It's very obvious that most of the posters there dislike people who are non-white, want to maintain geographically separate borders for non-whites, blame the "decay" of western civilization on non-white, admire Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's (you can find discussions where the mention how the swastika makes them proud of what white people can do and fills them with hope), etc. It's clearly a gathering place for people who adhere to neo-Nazi ideology. Even if not everyone there would consider themself a neo-Nazi, that doesn't change what clearly is the main attraction of Strormfront for its members. Yes, people are individuals, but the article isn't about exceptions to the rule. It's about the website and it attracts people for its neo-Nazi ideologies. I don't see how you can deny that. (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Not logged in.
Here's something to think about. Wikipedia claims to be a free encyclopedia. BUT it needs to be paid for through private contributions. Is it "the free encyclopedia" or the "user-supported encyclopedia"? The moral: It's important to note what a website claims to be, and what it claims not to be. I've inspected the site in question fairly thoroughly, and it isn't a cut-and-dried neo-nazi site. Instead, it seems to discuss everything from neutral topics (civil rights, affirmative actions, etc) to hitler-worship. But it wasn't made for Nazi glorification (to my knowledge... though I suspect that an interview with the founders would yield an agreement to my assertion), even though there is an undeniable segment of the site located on there.
Is a cafe full of nazis a "Nazi eating establishment"? Obviously, no. The presence of neo-nazis & co needs to be noted, but isn't a nazi site. Let's not let personal convictions get in the way; The world, reading wikipedia, deserves better than that. Mr. Kent (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Please review WP:RS. Please do not make any edits unless they are explicitly supported by reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I did, and found that all of the sources listed identify that Stormfront is commonly believed to be a Neo-nazi site. Although it lacks anti-communist policies (a defining feature of nazism), the sentiment needs to be reported, but the existence of a sentiment does not make that sentiment a fact. Calling it "neo-nazi" is blatant use of a buzzword, which is entirely unsupported. is a neo-nazi site; is not. Mr. Kent (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the sources simply state that it is a neo-Nazi site, not that it is "commonly believed to be". Do you have any reliable sources that state that it isn't neo-Nazi? Jayjg (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I was unclear, but the majority of people state their opinions as facts. Why? It's easier, to start with. By the way, could you give me a concise description of a "neo-nazi", to see why we are disagreeing? Mr. Kent (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
An editor's personal opinions are not relevant to Wikipedia articles; Wikipedia only cares about the views of reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
What I'm looking for is a definition of "Neo-Nazi." Seeing as you are opposed to honest discussion (where is this "previous consensus" anyway?), I looked it up on Neo-Nazism. "Neo-Nazism consists of post-World War II social or political movements seeking to revive Nazism or some variant thereof." Nazism Says " It was a unique variety of fascism that involved biological racism and antisemitism." Now, find me a place on that actually supports fascism. You seem very keen not to discuss anything... Mr. Kent (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Please review WP:NOR; Wikipedia editors cannot decide whether or not something is "neo-Nazi" based on their own application of Wikipedia's definitions of the term. Rather, they must rely on the views of reliable sources to guide them. Also, Comment on content, not on the contributor - that includes statements like "you are opposed to honest discussion" and "You seem very keen not to discuss anything". Finally, "previous consensus" will be found on this talk page, or in the talk page archives; please review them. Jayjg (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Now, find me a place on that actually supports fascism" As already mentioned, that is OR and that is exactly what we should NOT be doing. Nobody is avoiding the discussion. It has been discussed over and over. I'm sorry you got here late. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree, this page is biased agaisnt everyone that is not politically correct. Seems like soon it will be a crim to be white Norum 01:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

[ Yup, just plain political incorrectness.] Comparing Jew's to Grima Wormtongue and calling for the genocide of Muslims is TOTALLY not neo-nazi or racist. (You can thank for that one: ) Soxwon (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Soxwon: Actually, it's not. The nazis didn't have much to do with muslims, as i recall. They ARE racist, it's pointless to argue with that. But neo-nazi is a contentious label. I honestly cannot see why you are so opposed to making sure that they are fairly represented. It's sad, actually.

Norum: Yeah, pretty much. Example? Backlash against the boers in South Africa. Mr. Kent (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources that cover the site's viewpoint 'fairly': feel free to add them. If not: drop the stick. Jarkeld (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia

I'm no fan of Stormfront, but the rampant POV and editorializing presented in this article shames us all. Does it really matter who considers Stormfront a white-supremacist or neo-nazi website? Does the fact that some reasonably prominent individuals hold this opinion of the website justify us including these OPINIONS as factual information in an encyclopedia? Yeah, i don't think so either. They claim to be a white-nationalist website, so that's obviously not in dispute, but they deny being white supremacist or neo-nazi. Perhaps the opening sentence should read along the lines of "X,Y,Z consider Stormfront to be a white supremacist website, etc." rather than "Stormfront IS a white supremacist website." This is just the tip of the iceberg however, the entire article is absolutely crawling with uncited editorials and original research. If this article can't be cleaned up, then it should really be a candidate for deletion. -- (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it DOES matter who considers Stormfront to be supremacist or neo-nazi. Stormfront may not self-identify as such, but the forum meets the definitions and they are consistently described as such in the media. Playing the "Well, Stormfront doesn't say they are X" game would be shameful. A spade is a spade, even if it calls itself something else. The description is well-cited. If you have issues with other parts of the article, by all means be bold. But be sure to adhere to NPOV and verify. Glaucus (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
"it DOES matter who considers Stormfront to be supremacist or neo-nazi." Um, forgive me, but no, no it doesn't. I also dispute your definition of "well cited." What you don't seem to understand is that this is supposed to be an ENCYCLOPEDIA. An encyclopedia's job is to report facts, not opinions. No matter how widely held those opinions may be. The definitions of white supremacist/nationalist and even neo-nazi are themselves the subject of much debate so it makes little sense to attempt to state that SF objectively "meets the definitions." Who's definition? Some people believe 'white nationalism' and 'white supremacy' are the same thing, others dispute this. The point is that this is all very murky and you'll have to do better than that to justify attaching these descriptions to the website as a statement of fact in an encyclopedia.-- (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
It is a fact that the opinion of reliable sources is that Stormfront is neo-nazi. It's Wikipedia's job to report facts -- and the fact is, opinions exist and can be cited; and we're citing the generally held opinion that Stormfront is neo-nazi. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
That would be fine, so long as it's clear that what you're reporting is opinion. As of this moment that is not the case. The opening of this article states AS OBJECTIVE FACT that Stormfront is white supremacist and neo-nazi. I don't believe this can be justified for reasons I've already stated.-- (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The consensus of reliable sources is that Stormfront is neo-Nazi, white supremacist, and antisemitic. That's pretty much what Wikipedia considers to be a fact. Do you have any reliable sources that dispute this assessment? Jayjg (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Virtually every one of the "reliable sources" cited is an article in online news service or journal. This is all moot anyway because, as I have stated, the very definitions of these terms is highly controversial. I'd have no problem finding numerous reliable sources, or at least what wikipedia considers reliable sources, that disagree on the very definition of these terms. At the very least, this murkiness should be acknowledged in the article in some fashion. By the standard presented here, we would be justified in stating as objective fact that the Mona Lisa is a brilliant work of art. It would be no problem finding numerous "reliable sources" that consider the Mona Lisa to be a good/great painting. Does that justify opening the Mona Lisa article with "The Mona Lisa is an objectively fantastic work of art?" We could state that the Mona Lisa is a highly influential work, or we could state that the Mona Lisa is widely regarded as a fantastic work of art, but simply stating that the Mona Lisa IS a great work of art is obviously problematic for an encyclopedia-- (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • How does their being available online have any bearing on their reliability? The only people this is "murky" to seem to be IP editors with relatively few edits on unrelated topics. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
"Virtually every one of the "reliable sources" cited is an article in online news service or journal". First of all, if true, why would that matter? Moreover, it's simply not true; half the sources are printed books. In any event, Wikipedia relies on the consensus of reliable sources. Do you have any sources that dispute the fact that Stormfront is white supremacist and neo-Nazi? Please make sure any future responses include references to reliable sources about Stormfront that dispute these characterizations. Jayjg (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The sources are not unreliable because they're online, they're unreliable because they're almost universally "special investigations" or editorials. This is all beside the point. As to the "murkiness" I point you to white nationalism. The entire article is devoted to the controversy surrounding the definition of the word. Can my fundamental complaint be addressed, and would anyone object strongly if i were to reword to the opening paragraph to something along the lines of "SF is a white-nationalist website that is also widely regarded as supremacist/neo-nazi etc" and then cite the pre-existing references?-- (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Are you for real? The cited sources Time, NY Times, SPLC, Daily Telegraph all publish actual paper periodicals. The BBC is...well, the BBC, hardly a "online source". And 3 books are cited, as well as an academic paper. Even the Jewish Journal is an actual weekly paper. Simply put, you don't even make sense. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC), right now, on the Stormfront website, there is an on-going poll for "Favourite Waffen-SS Division", and another lengthy thread which shows a video of a speech by Hitler about women, and dozens of responses in which his views are lauded, Nazi Germany praised, and regrets voiced regarding the outcome of World War II. Now, please stop posting nonsense about Stormfront; instead bring reliable sources about Stormfront that dispute these characterizations. Jayjg (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
And here I was thinking this was a website about the weather but no . . . I'm pretty sure this is now just the IP trolling. Sol (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Really, Sol? I was under the impression that you agreed that it was bad form to comment on contributors instead of content. I still agree that this IP has a valid point. The site is often described as neo-nazi and white power but that does not mean that it is. Racist site but WP:LABEL still applies. Cptnono (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed it does. From WP:LABEL "racist . . . best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject," Sol (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree we should use such terms. However, we need to put it in the proper context. Instead of applying it as the definition we should simply move it down a line saying that "it is often considered x".Cptnono (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The administrators of the site have seen fit to create a forum specifically for holocaust denial, a neo-nazi staple. But, sure, the site only HAPPENS TO HAVE a huge neo-nazi following. --King Öomie 13:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Yes. I don't object to the Neo-nazi associations that surround this site, but please remember WP:NPOV, specifically "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as 'widespread views', etc. For example, an article should not state that 'genocide is an evil action', but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.'" Mr. Kent (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
In this case there are many reliable sources that state the forum is neo-Nazi, and there are no reliable sources that state anything to the contrary. Therefore, this appears to be a simple fact, not an "opinion". Of course, if you can produce reliable sources saying it is not neo-Nazi, then we have something to discuss. I don't hold out much hope for that, though; we've been asking another editor to do the same for over 2 months now, with no success whatsoever. Jayjg (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I will change the introduction.

I have been to Stormfront and the site doesn't describe itself as neo-nazi or white supremacist but as white nationalist:

"We are a community of White Nationalists. There are thousands of organizations promoting the interests, values and heritage of non-Whites. We promote ours. You are welcome to browse our seven million posts, but you must register before you can post to any forum except those designated as open to guests." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the change. The neo-nazi & white supremacist labels are reliably sourced. Jarkeld (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

// A gossip blogger from the Telegraph, an obscure article from Arizona and SPLC are neither reliable nor factual sources.

You cannot present an opinion as a fact.

I will remove this part again and once again I refer to the website which explicity describe itself as white nationalist.

"We are a community of White Nationalists. There are thousands of organizations promoting the interests, values and heritage of non-Whites. We promote ours. You are welcome to browse our seven million posts, but you must register before you can post to any forum except those designated as open to guests." (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Nisse

Unless you can gain consensus here, on this talk page, for your desired change, it will not stay in. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you've overlooked the actual sources. There are more than a dozen references listed for "white supremacist" and four sources listed for "neo-nazi", ranging from the NYT to the BBC. Your personal opinion doesn't outweigh reputable sources. Glaucus (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I only looked at the sources regarding neo-nazi. I thought that those source seem unreliable especially since nazism is a complete political system while Stormfront doesn't seem to endorse nazi ideology (corporatism etc). (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Nisse

As I pointed out in the section above, when I visited the site last month, there was an on-going poll for "Favourite Waffen-SS Division", and another lengthy thread which showed a video of a speech by Hitler about women, with dozens of responses in which his views were lauded, Nazi Germany praised, and regrets voiced regarding the outcome of World War II. Stormfront is, according to both reliable sources and common sense, a neo-Nazi forum. Jayjg (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
You seeing a tread there means nothing here. You know that. Yes, some of the users must be Neo-nazi but the site is not officially. WP:LABEL applies.Cptnono (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
W:V and WP:NPOV apply, and those are what is used here. WP:LABEL, which is a guideline (not policy), is quite clear that labels should not be used unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject - which is, in fact, the case here: the terms "supremacist", "neo-Nazi" etc. are widely used by reliable sources to describe Stormfront. If you have reliable sources that contradict this view bring them forward. And my seeing neo-Nazi threads, of which there are many similar, means that the reliable sources are also accurate. Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and I've just added 9 more reliable sources indicating that Stormfront is a neo-Nazi site, because there seemed to be some concern that "only" 4 sources described it that way. Please let me know if you need more, there are plenty available. Jayjg (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Or you could adhere to the spirit of the spirit of the MoS and NPOV by simply not making it a label. Describe it in the second sentence. SInce there are so many source3s available, just say something like "it is often considered.." or something. Citation overkill boarders on being POINTY and disruptive.Cptnono (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
This article adheres to both the letter and the spirit of the MOS and NPOV. Insisting that we not use the common, reliably sourced and factual descriptors, and objecting to additional reliable sources showing the descriptors are "widely used by reliable sources", itself "borders on being POINTY and disruptive". Jayjg (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Please read WP:CITEKILL and then explain why you think that a label is better than a clear explanation. Which benifits the reader more?Cptnono (talk)
That's an interesting essay, though it has no actual authority; in any event, the article doesn't even violate it, since the cites are grouped, exactly as recommended by that essay. Also, please explain why you think weasel words are better than a factual and informative description that no reliable sources dispute. Jayjg (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Because NPOV is not only a policy but one of the five pillars of this project. You are doping a disservice to the reader by applying a contentious label over clearly explaining it. Even if you do not like my proposed wording, an alternative wording would be appreciated since it is a complete violation of what we are supposed to be doing here. Why do we need to apply a contentious label over spelling it out in a NPOV manner? There is zero valid reason.Cptnono (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's one of the pillars, which is why it's good the wording complies with it. Your attempts to change that are what actually is "doing the reader a disservice", since there's no indication the description is in any way "contentious". You have been asked many times to provide reliable sources that disagree with these characterizations, but have been completely unable or unwilling to do so. Your personal opinion that it's "contentious" is not good enough, nor is your view that "we need more white supremacists editing here"; rather, you need reliable sources. Please stop just repeating yourself, or defacing the article with tags; instead, bring reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Primary sources can be used as sources in articles about the subject as long as they are handled with care.WP:ABOUTSELF This doesn;t even apply since we are not making a claim but expanding on the secondary RS. But you ignored the issue of why neutering the lead is better than explaining the issue. Of course the site is associated with all sorts of unPCness but there is no reason to apply the label without simply saying it is instead a common description. This is a fix that would take one sentence and a few words. The need to apply a label is just not needed and is very weird. And if the dispute was resolved it would not be edit warred over, would it? How about coming to a solution that will decrease further disruption? Why do you need it to be a label?Cptnono (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Primary sources can't be used where they contradict multiple reliable secondary sources. The answers to your questions have all been given, and your personal disagreement and willingness to continue arguing without any reliable sources to back you up don't actually create an NPOV issue. You must provide reliable secondary sources to back your viewpoints. No amount of rhetoric or argumentation here will do. Without them, the issue is moot, and the tag will have to go. Nothing but reliable secondary sources from now on, please. Jayjg (talk) 07:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure that there must be a page on that defends its collective beliefs, which would be useful as a non-point of view point/counterpoint type thing. Like "It is widely accused of supporting Neo-nazism and extremism, but <page> claims that "Quote." End of argument. Mr. Kent (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
A page on that website will never be considered NPOV. Jarkeld (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Please review WP:RS as to why we couldn't use that primary source to contradict multiple reliable secondary sources. Jayjg (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The article should state the website's official line somewhere. If the perception of the website is different to insiders than it is to outsiders, then that should be made clear. There are many Featured Articles that use official websites as sources. The article Microsoft is good example of one. We use the United States Census Bureau website for census information on Wikipedia because it is the best place to get it. We use personal webpages in biographies in the right circumstances (Wikipedia:SELFPUB#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves). The best place to get an organization's opinion of itself is its own website. We are allowed to do that. Jayjg, do you think Stormfront is unreliable for it's own official line. Yes or no? Bear in mind that Microsoft websites are reliable for the article on Microsoft, and that is a reliable source for the featured article The Million Dollar Homepage. We just have to use official websites appropriately. Cut it the mindless wiki-lawyering. The opening sentences of this article are not written in stone.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The article does state the website's official line; the very first statement is that it is "white nationalist". And yes, Stormfront is unreliable for just about everything it says about itself; I don't think Microsoft is a good analogy. Which Stormfront page did you want to use as a source? Jayjg (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Even talking about whether or not the site itself can be used as a source 1) has little to do with the intro. That starts looking like a debate which belongs elsewhere in the article. 2) A govt. agency or a Fortune 100 company is hardly the same at Stormfront's website. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't actually referring to the intro, or anything really specific. I really just want to bring Jayjg back into reality. It's not in our best interest to have experienced wikipedians driving away newbies with aggressive lawyer-speak. I understand that this website/article is quite different from the two I mentioned, but the point is some of our best articles use official websites as a sources. If this website disputes how it is termed in the media, or popular culture, or whatever, that would be a good thing to cover in the article; readers simply won't know it's an issue if we don't mention it. It seems to me that the website's outside perception must be an issue, or else this talkpage wouldn't be so lively. In my mind an 'official' statement from the 'official' website would be a good reference to use for that kind of thing. Not as a ref to 'prove' it's not not a hate-site, only as a ref to show that the website disputes how it is characterised in such a way. That should be reasonable. I can't give an example of something we could use from the site, but maybe someone reading this will come up with something and we could look it over. It's just that the constant tag-teaming of miffed newbies and less experienced editors isn't helping this article progress to the next level.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • So you typed that whole thing to essentially say "sometimes the websites are permissible."? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Bandying about the term "Neo-nazi"

I've made a change to the opening paragraph, concerning the aforementioned word. Now, what are Neo-Nazis? People who glorify Fascism, anti-communism, militarism, with anti-semitic views. Does Stormfront fulfill this? No. Some people there glorify fascism, but most dislike the military, don't care about communists, and often express anti-jewish sentiment. Clearly, these are not Nazis. Lets keep the buzzwords out of here. Mr. Kent (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That's how reliable sources describe it - please review WP:RS. Please do not make any further changes to the article unless they are explicitly supported by reliable secondary sources. Jayjg (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Again? Really? Why is anything archived? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Again? It is still not inline with our standards. This will continue to come up until it is. Most sources say "nationalist". Many say other things but those are contentious and disputed labels. It can be addressed out of the first line. There is no reason to keep it in the first line but it is easy to beat up on those who have views frowned upon by society. So if editors want to be serious and figure out how to fix what is a problem then the issue can go away. Until then, why are you surprised to see it come up so often?Cptnono (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Seriously? You're on the side of an editor who has made all of four article edits in his entire Wikipedia history, and has also today defended the National Association for the Advancement of White People and White nationalism? The fact that Stormfront readers are uncomfortable with this label is irrelevant. Go find some reliable secondary sources that say the forum is not neo-Nazi, as you've been asked to do many times. Jayjg (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Has it occurred to you that I read the pages in question, saw flaws, and fixed them? This IS how wikipedia functions, after all... As a matter of fact, I've made a few dozen anonymous edits(on a wide variety of subjects), but finally got around to making an account. Lets not discriminate based on my experience.
On the subject of labels, Mr. Obama has been 'labeled' a socialist. Is he one? That's up for debate. Does his wikipedia page say that he is a socialist (which would require publishing opinion as fact, while not allowing him a voice), or does it say that the sentiment exists?
Cptnono, You hit the nail on the head. Negative opinions can't get in the way of a rational approach to knowledge... The wikipedia-reading world really does deserve better. It's a lot of responsibility, but in the end it's worth it. ;) Even if no school will ever accept it as a legitimate source. (possibly due to significant POVs on fairly important subjects.) Mr. Kent (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Note: Discussion obviously needs to take place, hence the Neutrality tag. Discuss.Mr. Kent (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This has been discussed. Consensus was reached. And every so often, another WP:SPA comes along and says "oh no, we can't call them that" and the same few hold-outs jump back in and repeat their same argument and fail to produce the RS's they've been asked to produce. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, there's just one "hold-out" who keeps doing this. Jayjg (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I was trying to avoid pointing the finger at a single editor. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Have you reviewed WP:RS yet? There are many reliable sources that state the forum is neo-Nazi; do you have any that state it isn't? Jayjg (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The only source that I can cite is common sense; Therefore, popular opinion does not equal fact. Is it really so wrong as to fairly word something? Even if you(and most people) disagree with their views, they still have the right to be heard, and to be heard fairly. Also, Wikipedia:BITEMr. Kent (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
"Common sense" varies wildly from individual to individual; Wikipedia relies on WP:RS instead. Websites don't have a "right to be heard" on Wikipedia, they have a "right" to be represented in the way that reliable sources portray them. Jayjg (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but this does not vary: WP:NPOV 'Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as "widespread views", etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."' Mr. Kent (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Please review the previous discussions on this topic. In this case, there are many reliable sources that state the forum is neo-Nazi, and there are no reliable sources that state anything to the contrary. Therefore, this appears to be a simple fact, not an "opinion". Of course, if you can produce reliable sources saying it is not neo-Nazi, then we have something to discuss. I don't hold out much hope for that, though; we've been asking another editor to do the same for over 2 months now, with no success whatsoever. Jayjg (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • NPOV doesn't require that an article avoid stating the obvious, as stated by RS. It simply requires articles to be balanced. You, and you ilk, have been invited over and over to provide RS's that contradict what the cited RS's say. Thus far, you have not. Until such time, the only thing disputing the term isn't a reliable source, just your opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Not true. One was already provided. Even if more are not found ( I certainly don;t mind looking for more) the scenario is simple: Sources all agree that it is white nationalist. Many add on to that. We are only obligated to define them as :"white nationalist". If you want to define it as neo-nazi or anyhting else then you are in the wrong place. Simply say that many consider it neo-nazi" not that it is. Doing otherwise is against WP:LABEL since it is not the most often used definition, it is controversial and it is contested. So again, I will ask: WHY? Why do editors need to define it as neo-nazi? Why rock the boat on something that is an easy fix especially when the guidelines and policies allow for either version dependant on interpretation. How about you instead focus on making it a better article instead of attack piece. Or even better yet: How about you try to make it an article that is not edit warred and bickered over every other week? You can provide the facts in a NPOV way.Cptnono (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Would you point to that source Cptnono I can't see it and you would need to look for more. WP:WEIGHT is pretty clear here. As to the hope that this will not be subject to edit warring I doubt that will ever happen. On all the extreme political sites you have apologists trying to argue NPOV means a position half way between their extremism and the main sources so it will always be there. So we use sources we apply weight --Snowded TALK 08:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, I missed it too. Please point it out. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is fine, it is the behavior of editors who are suggesting changing the wording, and from the looks of it, are guilty of extreme wiki-lawyering and tendentiousness, that needs to be corrected. Having read most of the discussion above, I see many legitimate sources stating that site is neo-nazi, not sure what the hub-bub is about. Soxwon (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

And honestly, is a neutrality check needed? Look at this talkpage, NOT ONE ESTABLISHED USER OUTSIDE OF CPTONO HAS AGREED WITH THE PROPOSITION. Outside of SPAs like MR. Kent and Kurtle and a few IPs, no one has seen the need for change, I don't see the need for a debate. Soxwon (talk) 08:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Who declared me an SPA? I joined wikipedia a week ago and have consistently recieved nothing but abuse. I agree with the proposition... This page needs cleaning up Mr. Kent (talk) 15:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • You agree with what proposition? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
That a non-POV phrase is needed. Also, If you'd done your homework, you wouldn't be accusing me of being an SPA. Is it a crime to focus? Mr. Kent (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • First, you weren't being specific, which is why I asked you to clarify. Second, you've already came to my talk page, bitching and whining about the SPA thing. If you paid attention and did your homework, you'll see that I haven't mentioned it since then. But you are still complaining about it. Give it a rest already. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Sir, you truly lack courtesy, in the strongest possible sense. No one is here to be insulted, and you need to choose your words much more carefully. Mr. Kent (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • You call it whatever you want. You complained about me using that term and I haven't since then. But you are STILL bringing it up, saying things like "if I'd done my homework" etc. Do you really want to open the whole SPA thing again? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Niteshift, that wasn't directed at you, it was directed at Soxwon. Mr. Kent (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Ok. Since it was directly under me and didn't specify different, it looked like it was a response to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


Maybe we should get the page Semi-Protected Status? It seems like unregistered users are making reversions/additions in opposition of consensus.DriftingLeaf (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably not necessary for now. It seems to have stopped when the disruptive IP was blocked. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Founding myth?

>credits its mission to the founding myth of an America >myth

I'm no nazi, but it is a fact that George Washington signed into law a bill that allowed only whites to become citizens for more than a hundred years. (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)notanazi

Not clear what you mean. Jayjg (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I removed it, since the dispute seems to be not with Wikipedia but with the real-world consensus re Stormfront which we merely document. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree, obviously. Jayjg (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
And I have readded it. There is an ongoing dispute and tags should not be removed until it is resolved. Since neither of us is convincing the other, we could try an RfC or something along those lines.Cptnono (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I've removed it again. There is no "on-going dispute", since you have produced no reliable secondary sources to support your position. An editor cannot tag an article simply because they dislike it; rather, they must actually produce sources backing up the addition of the tag. Feel free to start an RFC, but the tag will stay out until such time as you provide reliable secondary sources, or an RFC supports your position. Jayjg (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Why are you edit warring over a tag? Like I said, we can chose to do an RfC, see a noticeboard, or other options. Edit warring over a tag does not improve the article and is bad form.Cptnono (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
What an odd question. Your tagging has been removed by three different editors,[1][2][3] and restored only by you. It is you who have been edit-warring over this tag, so you need to apply your advice to yourself. Start the RFC or noticeboard thread about your personal concerns, since your defacing the article with this unwarranted tag will clearly not improve it in any way. Jayjg (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
And all three are wrong in doing so. But how about I find diffs for every IP that has tried to remove the violating label? IPs are not only vandals, and you as an admin should know that and also not facilitate or participate in an edit war. So you mentioned sources. Keep in mind that we are allowed to use primary sources with caution. The website clearly states that it is white nationalist. And secondary sources can even be found. Just a quick search found one where the operator states (maybe incorrectly) that he is not a racist.[4] I can keep on going easily enough with google archive searches but I assume we are not playing a game and editors here are aware that it is disputed. I do not believe the organizer for a second but it doesn't mean that we can ignore WP:LABEL simply because their views are frowned upon by most of society. So please, provide reasoning for edit warring over a tag when it is clear that the label is contentious and disputed. I totally agree that we need to make it clear as day in the lead that the website is often called racist (BLP standards do not apply here so I will state that I full on believe it is a racist website) but it is not OK to apply demeaning labels if they are disputed. You have also failed to address why any label but "white nationalist" is needed in the first line. Why can't it be simply worded in a NPOV manner in the second sentence that they are called neo-nazis and racists? The bulk of secondary sources make it clear that they are white nationalist/supremacist while only some sources use other labels. Cptnono (talk) 06:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
How many of those IPs know anything about policy? And, as shown, it is you who are edit-warring, no-one else. Also, as has been explained before, this article complies fully with WP:LABEL. And finally, also as explained before, repeating yourself won't help or change anything; the only thing that will have any impact at all is reliable secondary sources that support your viewpoint. Jayjg (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I did, for one. Not every anonymous editor is a vandal... I found some fun stats on here. Mr. Kent (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
You did what? Not every anonymous editor is a vandal, but few of them understand policy. Jayjg (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
My viewpoint? You mean that the site is without any doubt "nationalist" and is often called "neo-nazi"? That one? It looks like you and those arguing for the label have a viewpoint (that it is a neo-nazi site). I don't believe I have said that it is not. I have simply said that ti is a contentious label that is not the most often used.Cptnono (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Cptnono (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
As explained before, repeating yourself won't help or change anything; the only thing that will have any impact at all is reliable secondary sources that support your viewpoint. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"As explained before, repeating yourself won't help or change anything . . ." If only Jayjg would listen to his/her self, this article might stand some chance of coming into compliance with the NPOV standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

  • It's not just him. There is no NPOV problem for most if us. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, and has no place in an encyclopedia, outside of an article describing its nature. The NPOV, as well as other aspects of this article are indeed in dispute, and no amount of "popular opinion" among the various editors is going to change that unless and until a unanimous consensus can be reached upon these matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
That's not how consensus is defined on Wikipedia. Stormfront denizens will always disagree with the generally accepted and highly negative opinion of their website; however, it is the generally accepted and highly negative opinion that is also the uniform opinion of our reliable sources, and the consensus of editors involved with this article is that the article indeed presents a neutral point of view. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Consensus has been achieved, if you, 24.x, have sources to prove otherwise, please post them. No sources: no new consensus: no need for the tags. Jarkeld (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Jayjg (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Unanimous? Thanks for that chuckle. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Apparently, many of you fail to grasp (or intentionally ignore) the true meaning of words. Regardless of any "consensus" that might be reached in any controversy on any subject, as long as there is disagreement, there remains a "dispute". There is nothing funny about that. It is simply a fact. To ignore that fact, by any means, is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty. The trouble with this encyclopedia is that it has been infected by a resident group of editors who clearly have an agenda, and those same editors are improperly removing properly placed tags at the head of this article intended to draw attention to the very controversies over NPOV here discussed in its regard. The fact that this is happening is a disgrace, and leaves a serious stain upon the very credibility of the encyclopedia as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    Of course there remains a dispute. You can use this talk page to attempt to gain consensus for your position; what you cannot do is repeatedly put tags on the article against consensus. Dealing with extreme minority positions (such as "Stormfront is anything other than a neo-nazi hate site") are dealt with in WP:FRINGE. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
None of our policies or guidelines say that one editor can keep an article tagged against consensus. This should be blatantly obvious, as if that were possible the most far out adherent to any weird idea could keep an article tagged saying there was a dispute holding an article hostage. That's not what the templates are designed to do. And you are edit-warring, you were warned about 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • If is your grasp on more than just the meaning of words that I doubt Mr. Iwontgetanaccount. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I love people talking about policies when policy is ignored still. You will keep on getting anons complaining since there is a massive breach of NPOV. Sucks we do not know which ones are repeat commenters but you can do a whois if you want. I wish the anons would actually sign in since it is obvious that IPs do not count as people and it is hard to assume they aren't socking trolls. But I have come to the conclusion that since we can say whatever we want about pedophiles then we can say whatever we want about racists. No one wants to admit to trying to be neutral when the subject is so distasteful. It is the way Wikipedia is. Filibustering, ignoring policies, edit warring, and choosing to ignore time tested and easy solutions will keep this article and many others about racists below par. But it isn't just this article so don;t take it too badly. Cptnono (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Policies aren't being ignored. When multiple reliable third party sources call Stormfront things like "white supremist", then guess what...putting that in here isn't a neutrality problem. If this was just a case of a single, activist group saying it, that would be one thing, but that's not the case here. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Policies are absolutely being ignored. The fact that a gaggle of like-minded editors with an obvious agenda have worked together as a team in order to deny the obvious anti-white bias in this article and elsewhere does not negate the demonstrable fact that this article violates NPOV guidelines in several ways. This bias is also reflected when various registered editors, some of whom may even be sock puppets display obvious arrogant attitudes towards IP editors such as myself, who raise valid concerns, but are treated as if they are lower life forms. Dr. David Duke, who figures prominently in this very article, even has another, quite relevant article posted on his own website titled, "Israelis Plot to Infiltrate Wikipedia" which probably sheds much more light upon the true situation here than many of these registered editors would care to admit. As I've noted before, it's simply 'disgraceful", but in this particular case, it clearly borders upon intentional racism. (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • An "obvious anti-white bias"? There went any hope you had of sounding credible. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's all a Jewish plot against "white people". Jayjg (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Niteshift36, please cite a few reliable secondary sources to support your implied position that "anti-white" bias does not exist, or retract your statement, and apologize for your unfounded, and insulting attack upon the credibility of my argument. I will address the insulting and unwarranted comment of Jayjg in due course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2011
The IP has some good points. Unfortunately, editors will not see passed the IP address, the "anti-white", and Jewish stuff. The IP is correct that there is a POV problem and correctly mentions policies supposedly in place to prevent it. But I think it is much more benign than he thinks. It is simply OK to beat up on those editors find despicable as long as their disdain for them is based on political correctness. Editors can get away with it. It doesn't mean they should. Cptnono (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Similarly, just saying "editors" and then describing who they are to the point of identification is no different than just naming them and, thus, no more civil. I looked passed it and he is still wrong. But rather than beat that dead pony a little more, I decided to comment solely on the tinfoil hat qualities of the post. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no way to prove that something does not exist. If you claim there is an anti-white bias, then it is up to you to provide evidence of your claim. I am white and it is very obvious to me that Stormfront is a hate forum. I even registered there and posted for a while to see if I could figure out the members. While many do try to hide their blatantly obvious racism and even deny that they hate anyone based on "race" the Swastika nostalgia, Hitler-loving, Holocaust denial, repeated insults of peope of 'other races' that comprise the contents of the forum make it pretty obvious that it's a white supremacist hate forum. Maybe not all members actually hate, but based on my observations there, it's plainly obvious. Furthermore, the point being made is that numerous reliable sources refer to it as a hate site and the article says exactly that. If you can actually cite a reliable source saying that it's not a white supremacist neo-Nazi hate site then please do so. Again, I am white and I see no "anti-white" bias here. That is a product of your imagination. AlkaloidMan (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC) AlkaloidMan

@Alky Can you find a source saying it's about white supremacy, neo-Nazi, or a hate site? No, you can't because it's only a White Nationalist website. White Nationalism doesn't advocate any forms of oppression over other races and is a completely honorable ideology. White Nationalism does not have the negative stigmas associated with neo-Nazism and White Supremacy. Anti-Whites will insist on labeling White Nationalists White Supremacists because White Nationalism has more respectability among Whites and is thus more of a threat to their anti-White agenda. People who understand "White Guilt", "Cultural Marxism", "Political Correctness", ect. are going to be more aware of the "anti-White" bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:25, 5 August 201175.134.135.139 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Can we "find a source saying it's about white supremacy, neo-Nazi, or a hate site?" Yes, of course we can. The article is filled with sources saying exactly that. Please read the article before commenting on its contents. Jayjg (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • And people that read an article at a site like, oh, Stormfront, and think that they understand "white guilt" will see bias where there is none. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

@Jayjg To be frank, I think most of you are smart enough to know it's only a White Nationalist site. I believe the Wiki mods all have their own independent minds. Wiki workers likely have the right to be moderate or biased against Whites but they are never allowed to even hint at being pro-White without some consequence or warning. As you know, calling White Nationalists White Supremacists is just a way to sweep White Nationalists under the rug. Savage White racialists, Whites who hate other races, degenerate Whites, ect. are tools to make people afraid of a perfectly sound, natural, and noble ideology of folkish love. The self-love element often demonized is beneficial for all the different unique and beautiful people, races, cultures, ect. not just my own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:08, 6 August 201175.134.135.139 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Sorry, IP, that's just not a valid argument for replacing reliable sources with your personal opinion. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If opinions don't hold more weight that facts, then there's no reason that Stormfront should be labeled a "White Supremacist, neo-Nazi, Hate Site". The sites owner, managers, ect. themselves should be considered reliable sources, not just by their words but their actions ie. what they support, rules of the site, and how they manage the site in general. From what I've seen, the site itself doesn't even hint at being White Supremacist, Hateful, neo-Nazi, ect. The worst of the diverse posters shouldn't represent the views of the board. Do all the Supremacists, Haters, ect. that edit Wiki represent Wikipedia? Of course not. There's no honor in falsely labeling something or someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:48, 7 August 201175.134.135.139 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Seriously, have you ever read the policies here? Do yourself a huge favor and read WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV because you clearly haven't yet. If you had read them, you wouldn't be saying the things you are. An essay that will really help you is WP:TRUTH. You probably won't read it, but I'll recommend it anyway. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Seriously, don't cherry pick (again) Niteshift. We should not be labeling them as is made clear by WP:WTW. And primary sources are allowed to a certain extent (I am sure you are familiar). And WP:NPOV means that we should be presenting things with a certain balance (not a forced balance). It is a simple as word smithing it. But no one here cares IP. precedent on Wikipedia is that anyone that is to the right politically can and will be pooped on. But before you get too upset, remember that pedos get it much worse. And just to be clear: I have no problem with the assertion that it is WP. I just don't like the definitive voice of Wikipedia to do so. Making this NPOV is never going to happen and editors want it that way.Cptnono (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Cherry pick? Do you even know what the term means? Because it doesn't apply here. Read what the IP actually said and then maybe, if you put your prejudice aside, you'll see why I recommended what I recommended. We're not even discussing whether the description belongs or not. We are talking about an IP poster that doesn't have a clue about the policies here or he wouldn't be talking about "site owners", "managers" and what is "allowed". So with all due respect Cptnono, you're taking a conversation that was decided long ago and trying to push that into what is currently being discussed, which is his total misunderstanding of how it works at Wikipedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • BTW, spare me the "oh, they pick on the right" silliness, it doesn't apply here. I'm as "right" as anyone around here, just not to the point where I defend white supremacists by downplaying what they are. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the point that "right wing" and "white supremacist" are not synonymous is an important one. Jayjg (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

anti- irish content

in 2009 the sub forum of stormfront ireland was closed down. due to don blacks kowtowing to loyalist british moderators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcduff1970 (talkcontribs) 10:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

File:David duke belgium 2008.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:David duke belgium 2008.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

Are not exactly neutral, any chance of Wiki101xyz discussing his changes? The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Doubtful, but one can hope. Jarkeld (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
If you revert his changes then he might comment.Meatsgains (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I have, hopefully he will take heed. The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Pretty transparent apologist. Just revert and warn and seek sanctions if he doesn't stop. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • He's enjoying a 24 hour block Niteshift36 (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


the intro seems a bit over the top to me. I just browsed the website and I didn't see much neo-nazism or white-supremacism. I could be wrong but from what I saw the intro is misleadingly attributing the views of some extremist posters to the entire message board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I actually think that the IP editor *may* have a point. If Stormfront started out as a white-supremacist hate site and has morphed into a white-separatist site, and if reliable sources can be found which reflect the *current* iteration as opposed to the historical site, it would be proper to change the text to reflect this. The difficulty would be in amassing enough recent sources to reflect the change perceived by the IP editor. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The SPLC web site (here) suggests that Stormfront underwent a change in or around 2008; that " ... racial slurs, which, though they sometimes get through, are banned in recent guidelines: "No profanity. Avoid racial epithets." New members are explicitly warned not to use such language, and also not to post violent threats or anything describing illegal activity ... . I'm not sure whether it's reasonable to assert that the website is still overtly a hate site if it has explicitly adopted guidelines like that. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
What the site claims as its policies may well be radically different from its actual practices. In any event, we can only go by what reliable secondary sources say about it, not what the site itself says, or our own conclusions. Jayjg (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
My point exactly. The SPLC website identifies it as the first internet hate site, but then does go on to identify the 2008 changes. The Stormfront site is listed as "extremist", but (I think) it is not identified as a "hate site". I couldn't find anything on the FBI site (though I could have missed it easily enough, I suppose). What I'm wondering is whether Stormfront is still a hate site. Has it been identified as such recently in a reliable source? It *is* recently identified as "extremist" by the SPLC. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
It might be more defensible to differentiate between the web site, itself, those who post there, and what is posted there. I know that may sound like hair-splitting, but (to quote Ghost Dog), "Matters of small concern should be treated seriously." TreacherousWays (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The contents of the website are controlled by the moderators - they can define what content is acceptable, and act on it. If they consistently fail to remove racist, antisemitic, or similar posts, then it's a reflection on the website itself. Anyway, we must rely on what reliable secondary sources say. Jayjg (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't disagree; the question I'm asking (and that I will look into) is whether Stormfront is currently a hate site. To use an extreme example, if we relied on literature distributed in 1970 to describe the auto industry or global warming, the articles would be different. If Stormfront did, in fact, make radical changes to their content rules in 2008 then that should be reflected in the article using current reliable sources. It would be too easy to be lazy and let it stand as it is without doing any research. I'm going to make sure that it's still a valid classification. TreacherousWays (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
and why should the SPLC be the standard for defining hate and defining stormfront when it itself is considered a hate site by some? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. I just noticed something else. On the wiki page the "mission statement" of the website is this:

" Stormfront is a resource for those courageous men and women fighting to preserve their White Western culture, ideals and freedom of speech and association—a forum for planning strategies and forming political and social groups to ensure victory.

   —Stormfront mission statement.[31]"

Where as on the actual website it says this:

"We are a community of White Nationalists. There are thousands of organizations promoting the interests, values and heritage of non-Whites. We promote ours. You are welcome to browse our seven million posts, but you must register before you can post to any forum except those designated as open to guests."

The citation is from an out-of-print journal from 2002!

Lots of things about this article just seem... off. Many of the sources appear to be out of date and/or impossible to actually find for verification. There also appears to be some obvious bias present in some of the sources. Could you perhaps direct me to the Wikipedia qualifications for valid sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

  • So? The folks at Stormfront actually smarten up a little and dial back the rhetoric so that they can try to deny being flaming racists and give some room for people to try to apologize for them.....and we're supposed to pretend things like the quote never happened? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

My point was that some information as presented in this Wikipedia entry looks dubious and/or simply incorrect. For instance it may well have been the mission statement in 2002, but it is not the mission statement in 2012. That is simply a factual inaccuracy. If it were labeled as "mission statement circa 2002" it would be factual. But I'm not sure why that would be relevant, other than in the history section.

I would wonder what role media sensationalism has had in influencing this article. This matter is highly controversial, which means that is going to be subject to the highest amount of reactionary opinions, rather than sober and honest analysis. Once something gets labeled as racist or neo-nazi whether it was correct or not that label gets stuck and perpetuated by the sensationalist media.

I know wikipedia isn't perfect I just think that we should expect more of it since it is independent and supposed to be impartial. I for one don't believe that the best Wikipedia can do on this entry is regurgitate media opinions from decades ago and cite obviously biased/questionable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Actually, it's not "highly controversial". The only controversy is when a random editor (usually an IP editor or a SPA) comes in and starts trying to find reasons to remove some of the sourced materials. (It is surely a coincidence that those IP/SPA never seem to want stronger wording) It always ends up being a matter of someone trying to convince the rest that the guys at Stormfront really aren't racists or that they have reformed somehow reformed. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Easy, there, Niteshift36. I'm no IP/SPA, nobody is talking about removing sourced materials, and differentiating between a "hate group" and a "racist group" might reasonably be considered to be controversial given that *any* discussion of racial issues can turn heated unless everybody involved maintains perspective. To my mind, we are having a collegial discussion regarding how current the information in an article is. The internet has changed enormously since 1995, and what was considered a hard-core hate site then might not make the cut in 2012, especially if the site's posting guidelines have changed. For context, imagine we were discussing 1960's pornography. Or gays in the military. I really *am* going to spend a few days looking into this to see if I can find any realiable sources that identify a dialing-back of the rhetoric. Honestly? It's probably a wild goose chase, but it might turn something up. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • First off....don't give me the "easy" warning like you are someone in a position to do so. I said USUALLY. What part of USUALLY confuses you? On top of that, are you the IP I responded directly to? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Nope. Please check my edit history; I am not a troll or trying to goad you. All I did was caution you to not assume that other editors have an agenda. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You're the one with assumptions my friend. Again, you assume that I'm making assumptions. Did I? I stated what I have observed. The history of this talk page supports that. There is no assumption in stating the obvious. How about you stop telling me what I think or what you think I said and just deal with what I ACTUALLY wrote? It will save me time and save you from being wrong over and over. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────And it's not just me or the IP. this is a blog, so not RS, but a poster notes, " ...I went there the other night. It's changed a bit. I saw a lot of posts about the members not hating blacks and Jews, but wanting to live separate from them. They even have a section where guests can ask questions. Pretty informative. ..." I'm not convinced of anything, trying to prove anything, or suggest that anyone has been "redeemed". Just researching and keeping an open mind. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

  • So? Why would you even bring up a blog entry that is far from being a RS? So the blogger saw some people that are separatists instead of racist. That is evidence of....nothing. I'd bet he didn't read even 10 percent of the posts made in the past year. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Just trying to demonstrate good faith, Niteshift36. The IP might be wrong and I might be wrong, but it's not a bad-faith suggestion on my part at any rate, and certainly worth my research. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how bringing up the unsubstantiated personal opinion of a non-notable blogger, published in a non-notable, non-reliable source is "demonstrating good faith". Research whatever you like. Far be it from me to keep you from spending your time on the quest. But please, don't bother with the non-RS opinions. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Guys, this is getting unnecessarily heated. We currently have an article backed up by reliable secondary sources saying the forum is a neo-nazi hate site. We now need reliable, secondary sources which say the site "was a hate site, but changed its policies and is now something else". Without those sources, we can't make any changes, so discussing it further is a waste of time. Niteshift is right, discussing primary and non-reliable sources isn't helpful. If we do find good sources, we can discuss whether changes to the article are appropriate then. Simple, really. No need for animosity. BTW, Nightshift, can you not bullet your replies to a non-bulleted discussion? It's just a personal thing, but it forces the rest of us to use a lot of extra indents just to differentiate our replies from yours.  — Jess· Δ 19:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • This isn't heated. It has that potential is TW keeps ignoring what I've actually written and chooses to make a lot of assumptions instead. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok. I guess that's a no to the bullet thing... In any case, this type of language isn't helping matters. There's no need for discussion right now, so let's just let the convo die and start fresh if and when we have reliable secondary sources documenting a new opinion. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ 20:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You have to keep harping on the bullet thing? Yeah, it's a no. I like it to be very clear where my response begins and indenting doesn't always do that. This probably would have died had you not needed to address it again. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Why was my comment about the mission statement as cited in this article being false ignored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

  • It hasn't been ignored. It has been rejected. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well for that to be the case there would have to be an explanation, which there isn't. Your tone is so helpful btw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  • It IS explained. Try reading the entire discussion. Further, I really don't care that another SPA here to try to put a better face on Stormfront doesn't like my tone. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I just read the entire discussion and I found no response to the fact that the mission statement as presented in this article is wrong. Shouldn't it either be moved to the history section and labeled "mission statement circa 2002" or updated to the current mission statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's still listed on [ this Stormfront page]. What you've listed isn't a mission statement, it's broad posting guidelines for the Stormfront fora. Jayjg (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
My personal assessment, after reviewing entries on the ADL and SPLC web sites, as well as reviewing a very limited number of news stories is that the current text, identifying Stormfront as one of the first "hate sites", is well-sourced, and that the article itself is reasonably neutral given the topic. The term "hate site" is poorly-defined; there is little evidence that each of the authors in the references is using the same criteria in using the term. It would be convenient if the FBI or Interpol or the EU listed Stormfront as a hate site, but they don't. The founder of Stormfront was banned from the United Kingdom for promoting serious criminal activity and fostering hatred that might lead to inter-community violence, but Stormfront isn't identified as a "hate site" per se. I will be honest and say that the use of such a vague and emotional identifier in the lede (like "terrorist", "hate group" or "hate site" does have a certain amount of subjectivity) makes me uncomfortable, but I am not convinced that the term is misleading, unsourced, or unreasonable. I think that it should stay, barring the introduction of better evidence to the contrary. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Calling the site a neo-nazi and white supremacist site is POV. I think a lead like this would be better: Stormfront is a White Nationalist forum. [...] It has received scrutiny for having member supporting white supremacy and denying the Holocaust. PaoloNapolitano 18:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Please review the discussion above. Wikipedia relies on the views of reliable secondary sources. Reliable secondary sources state it is neo-nazi and white supremacist. Do you have any sources saying the opposite? Jayjg (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Calling it "neo-Nazi" is indisputably POV, I'm sorry. Nowhere anywhere on the forum itself in its entirety is a Nationalsocialist affiliation even implied. Calling the forum a "neo-Nazi" (whatever that is) community is not in any way more defensible than calling ANY other forum a "neo-Nazi" forum based on the political views of a small percentage of its membership base. By the same logic, one would have to call nearly every forum with a considerable number of users a "neo-Nazi" forum, as just a few members subscribing to Nationalsocialist politics (which I can guarantee you is the case with any forum of a few hundred users or more) would then make it a "neo-Nazi" forum by the very same standard. Furthermore, you would have to apply the same standard to nearly every forum on the planet; are you prepared to edit the Wikipedia pages for each and every forum to attribute the political leanings of their users accordingly? Are you going to edit the article re: video game forum to reflect the likelihood that it is largely comprised of users who subscribe to democratic views? Or do you only apply this standard to a very small number of sites, namely those which you may personally disdain? Of course we aren't going to attribute each and every forum on the internet according to the political views of some of its membership base, unless of course it is the, or one of the, subject(s) of that forum in which case -- and only in which case -- it would be relevant. In this case, the theme of Stormfront in particular has no political affiliation whatsoever. I see no possible way it can be arbitrarily attributed to a specific political affiliation without crossing over deliberately out of the realm of non-POV editing. (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
To answer your rhetorical question, we reflect on this and other articles across the site what is attributed to the subject by reliable sources. We do not have reliable sources that say IGN is a "democratic forum". We do have reliable sources saying SF is a "neo nazi hate site". You need to present reliable secondary sources indicating otherwise for this conversation to continue. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ 00:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense. Stormfront itself is a primary source and it declares Stormfront to be unaffiliated with Nationalsocialism or "hate." There are many Nationalsocialist forums, and hate forums, the communities of which have no issue openly identifying as such. I don't care what secondary sources claim about something if it is verifiably false and unproven in any way that is rational. Taking biased sources as legitimate secondary sources is fine, in your perspective, while ignoring the primary source itself? Each and every one of the cited sources is openly biased by its title alone. I suppose you will be editing the article on African-Americans citing several dozen pieces of KKK literature as secondary sources? (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't make up the rules. This is just how wikipedia operates. Read WP:PRIMARY. There are many other wiki projects which operate differently, but on wikipedia, secondary sources trump primary ones.   — Jess· Δ 21:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Mann_jess, Stormfront boasts members frequently speaking highly of American, Australian, and British service personnel who fought against the Nazis, and frequently speaking against Nazi Germany. Yes, without a doubt, there are Neo-Nazis on the site, but relying on secondary sources that ignorantly label the site in its entirely "Neo-Nazi" is about as POV as it gets, and makes it more than a little obvious that your position isn't about "the rules" but about your own personal ideology. You don't make the rules, you just abuse them: if someone went around and inserted comments about the alleged misogyny of countless male musicians and artists, as well as that of certain political and religious figures, supported by secondary sources (and there are many, academic, as well as journalistic, and particularly with regard to a lot of hip-hop acts) would you show the same concern when people edited out such comments? There is a growing tide of acceptance toward misogyny among self-righteous hypocrites who get hysterical about anything that even resembles racialist or nationalist views, and these hypocrites treat Wikipedia as their own personal playground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact that some editors actually think that citing a source called "The Jewish Journal" for its opinion on a White Nationalist community is a legitimate secondary source is beyond laughable. It is downright embarrassing to the Wikipedia community. As said above, you are completely abusing the rules here; citing a source that is inherently and overtly anti-White-Nationalist for its opinions on White Nationalism is POV. Period. As I said before, there is no difference between that and if I were to edit the page on "jews" citing KKK literature for all my information. Would you be fine with it if I did that? Serious question. (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • If the Jewish Journal were the only source it was being based on, then you might have a point. But since it is only one of the sources being used here, the validity of the argument starts dropping fast. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Please. Your argument amounts to "I know there are some ridiculous sources being cited, but since one or two of them are valid the ridiculousness of the rest is justified." There are issues with many, if not all, of the sources. For instance one source states that Stormfront provides "neo-Nazi literature and music," which is not even close to the same as being a "neo-Nazi community." YouTube also supplies neo-Nazi literature and music, for instance; as do just about every file-sharing site on the planet. Another source states that he found on Stormfront "neo-Nazi messages and illustrations," which can also be found on YouTube, Yahoo! Answers, Gaia Online, Steam community, shall I go on? The "article" published on the University of Arizona's website doesn't even appear to be written by people who are terribly familiar with the English language; even the cited part is vague and unclear ("a neo-Nazi's website"? Does that mean a neo-Nazi owns it or that it is neo-Nazi in nature?). I'm sorry, but some of these sources are absolutely ridiculous. I am genuinely interested as to why the editors of this article are so determined to be as misleading and untruthful as possible. Citing sources which are also inaccurate and untruthful does not lend any validity to this shameful work. (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • If you think that's what the argument amounts to, then I've given you too much credit and continuing to entertain you is pointless. Keep apologizing for the racists anonymous IP "contributor".Niteshift36 (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Stormfront is not a neo-nazi site nor it is racist. It is simply a pro-White website for people of European descent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I know, right? Totally misunderstood. Just like how the Klan is really a civic organization to support sheet manufacturers. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think, that the site is somewhere in the middle. It's a big site, so there are bound to be a lot of clashing ideas still pertaining to the White Nationalism ideology. I am in no way unbiased (Quarter Jewish and, so to speak, racially mixed, not the sort of person they like at all), but I don't really think that unbiased sources quite exist. The site is a ground for different ideas and levels of extremism, and depending on your view, the really extreme ones will fire you up into classifying it as a incredibly Neo-Nazi white supremacy organisation, while somebody who would compare its rules and official polices would see a moderate white nationalist separatist movement, and feel that the forum is unfairly seen as a "Fourth Reich", if you will. They would attempt to change and question the validity of our sources, due to a feeling that Wikipedia is not maintaining its neutrality. However, due to there not existing any actual balanced reports of the site that I am aware of (Mostly condemning it or praising it for the bastion of freedom they perceive it to be), I believe that it is well worth to document any major reformations done to "moderate" the site, and reactions to that, but not state anything but cold facts in that matter. Statistics would be wonderful, but I sincerly doubt and hope to be proven wrong, that any correct ones will emerge anytime soon about this site.

For a site discussion that I believe illustrates the conflicting subsidies of the site, see here:

KathiravanIsak. I can't seem to be able to produce that tag at the end, and I apologize for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KathiravanIsak (talkcontribs) 21:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Niteshift36: "Just like how the Klan is really a civic organization to support sheet manufacturers." Just like how male porn consumers assert the illusion that they're not misogynist lowlives and in fact respect girls and young women despite the obvious, you mean? You can stop pretending your rhetorical nonsense serves as an argument to try to advance your ideologically-driven edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm sure that on some level, you think that actually made sense. We have reliable sources calling them neo-nazi. Period. Take it up with the sources.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)