Misplaced Pages

Talk:Stormfront (website): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:30, 4 January 2009 editFranamax (talk | contribs)18,113 edits →"It is also a Neo-Nazi website": cmt← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:20, 24 June 2024 edit undo2a05:4f46:310:5c00:a75e:19c2:dbc9:5a5f (talk) →Removing link from Infobox: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
{{controversial}}
|maxarchivesize = 125K
{{Not a forum|Stormfront}}
|counter = 6
{{ArticleHistory|action1=AFD
|algo = old(45d)
|archive = Talk:Stormfront (website)/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{skiptotoctalk}}
{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WebsiteNotice|nested=yes|class=GA}}
{{WikiProject Discrimination|nested=yes|class=GA}}
{{WP Internet culture|class=GA|importance=mid|nested=yes}}
}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=AFD
|action1date=18 September 2005 |action1date=18 September 2005
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stormfront (website) |action1link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stormfront (website)
Line 38: Line 27:
|action4oldid=229887761 |action4oldid=229887761


| action5 = GAR
|topic=Engineering and technology
| action5date = 22:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
|currentstatus=GA
| action5link = Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Stormfront (website)/1
| action5result = delisted
| action5oldid =

|topic=Computing
|currentstatus=DGA
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
{{notaforum|Stormfront}}
{{WikiProject Websites|computing-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Internet culture|importance=mid}}
}}
{{To do|small=yes}}
{{trolling}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 40K |maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 6 |counter = 11
|minthreadsleft = 10
|algo = old(28d)
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Stormfront (website)/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Stormfront (website)/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index
|mask=/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Nazi symbol) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Nazi symbol","appear":{"revid":1011953586,"parentid":1011942727,"timestamp":"2021-03-13T19:47:46Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":1072032451,"parentid":1070912086,"timestamp":"2022-02-15T16:37:52Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"very_different":"26≥11","rename_to":"Nazi Hakenkreuz (Hooked-Cross) symbol"} -->
}} }}


==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
== This news just in ==
] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2018-10-05">5 October 2018</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2018-12-12">12 December 2018</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ]. Peer reviewers: ].


{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 10:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
Stormfront have enabled mandatory registration in order to view the forum after a massive traffic overload after Obama was elected. I don't have an account, so I don't know what's going on there, but I think it's very, very bad. <font color="#800080"><i>Avnas Ishtaroth</i></font> <b><sub><font color="#B048B5">]</font></sub></b> 07:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
== Offline status ==
:Oh, any coverage in the media/blogosphere? <font color="404040">]</font> 20:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
::It wasn't on the news. I don't think it experienced more traffic after Obama's win. If it did I'd think Don Imus would want it. I've seen it after Obama's election. They seem to be arguing he's successful because he's "part white" ] (]) 20:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC) As of April 13th, 2023 it appears their website is currently down, possibly server suspended service with a 403 HTTP status code: "The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request". According to sitechecker.pro, this might mean their domain has expired. --] (]) 06:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
:::Straws; clutching at... what a hoot! So the above is entirely unsourced? -- ] (]) 04:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, see :
:"One of the most popular white supremacist Web sites got more than 2,000 new members the day after the election, compared with 91 new members on Election Day, according to an AP count. The site, stormfront.org, was temporarily off-line Nov. 5 because of the overwhelming amount of activity it received after Election Day. On Saturday, one Stormfront poster, identified as Dalderian Germanicus, of North Las Vegas, said, 'I want the SOB laid out in a box to see how 'messiahs' come to rest. God has abandoned us, this country is doomed.'"
So though I'm not sure about the registration thing, activity did apparently jump after the election. --] (]) 23:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
:I checked the site and it's open again. If someone wants to add the material from the Yahoo news page that'd be appropriate. ]] ] 23:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
:And it's closed again. It's apparently intermittent. ]] ] 06:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


== Link ==
Nice work chaps, I've added it to the History section. Regards, <font color="404040">]</font> 13:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


Should we really be directly linking to a white supremacist neo-Nazi website? Surely we should not be giving them any more traffic?
== 'The new Ku Klux Klan'? ==
:]. To have an article about a website without linking to that site would be absurd.----] 07:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
::Why not? We link to the SPLC. ] (]) 01:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


== Redundant/excessive use of descriptors ==
-- ] 00:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
:Interesting stuff indeed, but I have to ask in light of this fatherly advice:
{{cquote|"Do not you ever say, you can not say." Shake and try to stop the hand with the speech: "You know that you can not say." The father remains motionless: "Do not ever say to an American journalist, but you know that is true."|||Il Duce Grandi Wizardi Don Black}}
:...are machine translations from '']'' reliable enough for our purposes?! <font color="404040">]</font> 13:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
::Absolutely not. I'm not even going to try and parse that by hand. Could be worth having someone who can read it fluently look over it. -- ] 14:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, there's another machine translation . I'm having a go at finding someone who could provide some decent insight. -- ] 11:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
::::And I've asked an editor fluent in the language to do a translation. "I asked them if Stormfront is not just another new Ku Klux Klan, a Klan of the 21st Century without pointed hoods and Arian symbols. "Yes, it is just like that", was the instant response. Along with Don Black, his son Dereck (age 19) is seated, who is the organizer of the radio (program) on the Internet of Stormfront. From the beginning of our encounter he listened quietely, but now interrupts his father: "You have not never said it, you can not say that". He gestured and tried to stop his father's speaking with his hand: " You know that you can't say it". The father remained immovable: " I never said that an American journalist, but you know that it is true"." ] (]) 06:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


The first sentence of the article describes Stormfront as "a white nationalist, white supremacist, antisemitic, Holocaust denial, and Neo-Nazi Internet forum," which, while 100% accurate, uses way too many adjectives. Neo-nazis, by definition, are white nationalist, white supremacist, antisemitic Holocaust deniers, so including all those extra descriptors is just redundant. I think it would be better if "white nationalist, white supremacist, antisemitic, Holocaust denial, and" was removed so the first sentence just said "Stormfront is a Neo-nazi Internet forum, and the Web's first major racial hate site." Cc330162 (]) 00:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::I'm quite uncomfortable with including this in the article given the current state of play; your translation does not make grammatical sense in English as far as I can make out, and a misplaced conjunction could radically alter the meaning of the passage. From an encyclopaedian point of view, I would love to write that Black envisages Stormfront as the new KKK, but we can't trust this source for such an outrageous claim - what if the media picked it up from Misplaced Pages and it turned out to be a misunderstanding? Egg on our faces. I had a brief look around the Stormfront forums but I couldn't find anything dealing with this report specifically, although casts serious doubt as to the journalistic reliability of the article we have just included. <font color="404040">]</font> 15:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
*I am not unsympathetic to the idea of economy, but the problem here is that many of these descriptors (in this and many other articles) have been fought over pretty hard. By the way, that "ad hominem" charge in your edit summary, that piqued my attention. I actually don't have a very strong opinion here, but let's wait and see what other say. {{U|GorillaWarfare}}, this is probably the kind of article you've dealt with before. ] (]) 00:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
*:{{u|Drmies}}, good shout - {{u|GorillaWarfare}} has a deft touch with these things. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 01:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|Cc330162}}, I have nothing against calling them neo-Nazi and then describing their numerous abhorrent opinions as narrative. Do you have a suggested change? ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 01:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|JzG}}, As I said before, I think the first sentence should be changed from "Stormfront is a white nationalist, white supremacist, antisemitic, Holocaust denial, and Neo-Nazi Internet forum, and the Web's first major racial hate site." to "Stormfront is a Neo-nazi Internet forum, and the Web's first major racial hate site." Including white nationalist, white supremacist, antisemitic, and Holocaust denial in the sentence is redundant, especially since it already says that on the sidebar under "Type of site." Stormfront being an explicitly Neo-nazi forum implies that it is white nationalist, white supremacist, antisemitic, and Holocaust denialist, so I think removing those extra descriptors from the first sentence and simply calling it a Neo-nazi forum would be better because it would take up less space on the article, it would adequately explain what kind of website it is while being concise, and the sidebar already serves the purpose of going into more detail as to what type of website it is. Cc330162 (]) 01:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
:I agree that the current sentence is too verbose, but I think trimming it just to "neo-Nazi" might be too much. While you are generally correct that neo-Nazi encompasses the other descriptors, they are fairly noteworthy traits of the site. What about "a white supremacist, antisemitic, and Neo-Nazi Internet forum"? ]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 02:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
:: If Misplaced Pages's article on Neo-Nazis says that they have all the descriptors, than surely calling Stormfront neo-Nazi would not be depriving anyone of information. ] (]) 09:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Suggestion''' - Perhaps rephrase to read "Stormfront is a white supremacist and Neo-Nazi Internet forum. The site was the Web's first major racial hate site, primarily promoting white nationalism, antisemitism, Holocaust denial, misogyny, homophobia and Islamophobia." or some variation thereof. ] (]) 00:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


{{strikethrough|Neo-nazi is a self-described ideology. You can be all of those things without being a neo-nazi. Asserting that people with such beliefs are neo-nazis is politically biased. ] (]) 08:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)}}
::::::Well, I didn't ask for perfection- just wanted to check that I wasn't reading the article wrong. I think it is reasonable to believe I am not reading the article wrong, and that Dereck Black was not interrupting his father to stop him expanding on the subject of how Stormfront could not be thought of as the new KKK, and Don Black was not pointing out that he had sometimes failed to explain his pluralist view on life to the American media.
:{{u|Snakestraws}}, society is biased against Nazis. We settled this in the 20th Century. There was a war and everything. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 12:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


==URL==
::::::Obviously, we're not going to be mining that source for a 'typical Stormfront quote' in the lede any time soon. ] (]) 15:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
{{atopr|result=In conjunction with my ], I am closing this one as '''Yes.'''
On second thoughts, our translation seems plausible; it sounds like something Black would say and I am reasonably sure we are not mischaracterising anyone. <font color="404040">]</font> 13:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks... I did have my own doubts about it, but it seems fine after a bit of consideration. ] (]) 14:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
::Do you have any objection to moving the quoted section here? As long as we are agreed on the wording, it does not seem necessary or desirable to include a somewhat questionable translation in a ] footnote, with all due respect and gratitude for your work on this. I have this ] notion of taking this article to ], and I'm not sure the inclusion of the translation would be favourably received there. <font color="404040">]</font> 13:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Okay, I'll move the quotation here tomorrow barring any issues. <font color="404040">]</font> 12:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
:::: Opposed, mostly at this point on the grounds i have no idea what's being proposed. Perhaps you could explain in a new thread at the bottom of this page instead of seeking consensus for something way up here?] (]) 13:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
::::I also oppose this until you clarify what you're proposing. If what you want to do is move the quotation from the article to the talk page, I'm definitely opposed. Also, I'm having trouble seeing how "casts serious doubt as to the journalistic reliability of the article". Could you kindly explain how a Stormfront editor pissing and moaning about how the Associated Press reports on his site casts doubt on anything reported in ''Repubblica'', in any other publication, or even in the Associated Press? --] (]) 15:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


Most of us ]. However, in determining ], points weighted in policy have to be considered over points weighted in other factors.
== "Neo-Nazi" again ==


] and ] have general acceptance among the community and a ] can not normally overrule that.
This article has been added to the category {{cl|Neo-Nazi websites}}. As the only identification of Stormfront as "Neo-Nazi" is Bill O'Reilly, who is not a neutral and reliable source of information, this category does not belong in the article in its current state. Per ], I'll remove it tomorrow if this state persists. <font color="404040">]</font> 20:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


Despite this, I see very little discussion has been had at this venue (the other RFC mentioned this in passing) about the location and format of a potential link. See ] for more information about possible next steps there.
:I think we should include the category, based on the arguments on OrangeMarlin's talk page. Thanks, ] 21:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


Regards, <small>(])</small> &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 00:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
::There are many sources that have called the website "neo-nazi". Among others are the '']''., The ''Jewish Journal'', and the district government of Dusseldorf. I'm sure there are plenty more. Further, they have a history of posting nazi-related graphics in sysop-controlled pages. ]] ] 21:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

:::The Register article refers to Stormfront.com, a different website. I'm not familiar with the other two publications; are they reliable sources? For a designation of such weight, it would be much better to have more than a passing mention (see white supremacy discussion and footnote). Appreciate the research, <font color="404040">]</font> 02:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

::::The Register article is a great example of their incompetence. German sources do, indeed, describe Stormfront.org as a Nazi/Neo-Nazi website that the Dusseldorf government has banned. ] (]) 05:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::I wonder what the folks at http://www.stormfront.com/ think about their namesake. That must lead to some confusion. ]] ] 06:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::Nothing ]... ] (]) 14:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
*''A SICK Nazi website has unleashed a tirade of hate at Irish Olympic boxing hero Darren Sutherland. The 26-year-old bronze medallist, whose dad is from the Caribbean, has been labelled a "mongrel" and "half-breed" by brainless racists on the Stormfront website.''
**"Darren's targeted by nazis" Danny Conlon. ''News of the World''. London (UK): Aug 24, 2008. pg. 7
***We're looking for neutral coverage of a controversial topic concerning living people; tabloid sensationalism won't cut it. <font color="404040">]</font> 12:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
*''In recent months Black has toned down the Web site, banning many symbols of Nazism that formerly were common on the site, including swastikas, lightning bolts and the number 88. The letter H is the eighth letter of the alphabet, and among supremacists 88 stands for "Heil, Hitler." He also eliminated the N-word, Potok notes. According to Kreis of Aryan Nations, Black has not explained why he did so, "but he has ticked off a lot of people" in white power circles. Potok says he believes the changes are purely cosmetic. "This is not a change of philosophy on Black's part," Potok said. "This is a public relations move to make the Web site seem less drastic, to try and draw more people in right now during the presidential campaign. His beliefs are still fundamentally neo-Nazi. If you listen to the content, you'll hear it."''
**"LOCAL ORGANIZER, OTHER SUPREMACISTS SAY OBAMA'S RUN BOOSTS THEIR CAUSE" JOHN LANTIGUA. ''Palm Beach Post.'' West Palm Beach, Fla.: Jul 27, 2008. pg. A.1
***The Neo-Nazi identification here seems to be "Potok"'s opinion rather than the reporting of the ''Palm Beach Post''; any reason this Potok individual should be considered an RS? <font color="404040">]</font> 12:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
*''Mr. Warman continued to scour the Internet for Canadian hatemongers, finding many at a U.S. neo-Nazi site called Stormfront, whose web forum has a Canadian section. "It's almost like moths to a flame," he says. "They can't avoid it."''
**"One man's war on Internet hate; He calls himself more 'Aryan' than the hatemongers he chases, but Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman has become the bete noire of Canada's neo-Nazis, writes Don Butler.;" Don Butler. ''The Ottawa Citizen''. Ottawa, Ont.: Jul 11, 2007. pg. A.1
***Seems legit but fleeting. <font color="404040">]</font> 12:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
*''Held for bail hearing. Ile Perrot man visited neo-Nazi websites, posted photos with guns...At other websites, Emard posted photos of himself posing with weapons and making a salute used by the Nazis in Germany before and during the Second World War. He is believed to have posted comments at www.stormfront.org more than 300 times since October 2005.''
**"Threats suspect fond of hate sites:; " PAUL CHERRY and MICHELLE LALONDE. ''The Gazette''. Montreal, Que.: Oct 7, 2006. pg. A.9
***Doesn't seem to specifically identify Stormfront as N-N. <font color="404040">]</font> 12:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
*''Text of report by Belgrade-based B-92 TV on 22 February
*'' A list of Jews living in Serbia has appeared on a US Nazi site, in its forum in Serbian.
*'' Participants in the forum on the stormfront.org site say only a dead Jew is a good Jew.''
**"List of Jews living in Serbia appears on US Nazi site" ''BBC Monitoring European''. London: Feb 23, 2005. pg. 1
***Is B-92 reliable? BBC seems legit but fleeting again. <font color="404040">]</font> 12:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
These are just a few of the sources I've found in ]. There are numerous reliable sources that label this a "nazi" or "neo-nazi" site. While we certainly should be cautious in using such a label, it appears well-justified in this case. ]] ] 06:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
:I've no doubt that we could rack up an impressive list of RS' that mention Stormfront in passing as "Neo-Nazi"; but that is precisely the sort of superficial analysis that has plagued the attempt at serious, in-depth coverage of this topic. I have not found one that attempted to justify the label or even discuss why it is being used. Ascribing ideologies to internet fora is a dubious notion to begin with – to tar the heterogeneous beliefs and attitudes of all the Stormfront users as Neo-Nazi seems doomed to inaccuracy to begin with, akin to categorising the Misplaced Pages article as "Amateur enecylopaedias". I'd like to try to put a section on Stormfront's reputed white supremacy and Neo-Nazism in the article, but so far we have no serious analysis of the appropriety of attributing these beliefs. By using throwaway adjectives instead of detailed analysis, we run the risk of endorsing mainstream POV rather than NPOV. <font color="404040">]</font> 12:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
:: This group and "neo-nazi" appear to fit like hand and glove. Here's an article on their own site calling them so ] here's a report from a left-wing group calling them so ] here's a thread on a high traffic right-wing blog where they're called neo-nazi (redacted link to the freepers because of some spam filter) here's an article from the Canberra Times calling stormfront neo-nazi (via a blog, but the full text of the news article is there ] here's an article where the group defends itself from everybody elses opinion that they're neo-nazis ] and on and on. Also, isn't the founder a former grand kookle/pooh bah/whatever of the KKK? If some sort of weird, twisted radical skepticism (this is not in fact a hand i see before me) can be used to deny labelling this group neo-nazi, might as well do away with the term altogether.] (]) 16:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

:::Your first link is a forum post - I don't think anyone is denying that some members of Stormfront are (self-identified) Neo-Nazis; the claim is that the ''webiste itself'' is Neo-Nazi. Left-wing groups and right-wing bloggers are not the sort of reliable sources we are looking for. The ''Canberra Times'' ref is the sort of fleeting mention discussed above, I think Black is a former member of the KKK but that is not substantiated here nor does it speak directly to the Neo-Nazism of Stormfront, and the last article is a good example of why we ought to be careful here. Radical skepticism is an inadequate description, because there are standards of evidence that are acceptable for the verification of claims; detailed in ]. Exceptional claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community require a high level of sourcing. I'd settle for a collection of fleeting mentions (as in the white supremacy footnote), but quality scholarly analysis would be far more preferable. Thanks for weighing in, <font color="404040">]</font> 16:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::Skomorokh, you've gone through and described some of these refs as fleeting, but they're short because I only excerpted a few lines. I think there is sufficient evidence to use this label. Do you know of any evidence to the contrary, to show that anyone connected to Stormfront denies it being a neo-nazi forum? Black himself has been connected with neo-nazi groups, so I doubt he'd deny it. If there's plenty of evidence that it is, and no one saying that it isn't then we don't need to argue at length. ]] ] 18:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::Absence of evidence to the negative is no indication of evidence to the positive; your attitude seems to be one of "well, there's some indication that it is, and no indication it's not, so on balance it's fine to say it is". That simply does not fly for a highly controversial label for a highly marginalized group. I am not contesting the inclusion of the category now that (admittedly flimsy) references have been added, I simply feel that it is not informative to our readers, because all we can say about the issue is "Stormfront is a Neo-Nazi website" rather than provide a paragraph that goes into proper analysis of Stormfront's relation to Neo-Nazism. Without context, "Neo-Nazi website" serves only as a term of abuse rather than an informative appellation. Did any of the reliable sources you've come across go into any detail on the Neo-Nazi claim? <font color="404040">]</font> 18:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Your argument would only be meaningful if those making the claim were themselves fringe sources. In other words, if only fringe left-wingers considered Stormfront to be a Neo-Nazi website, then it could just be that nobody takes the claim seriously enough to refute it. But that's obviously not the case here - mainstream, respected sources refer to them that way. You are simply choosing to ignore them because you don't like them. --] (]) 18:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I'm not ignoring anything; please assume good faith. I don't think left-wing watchdog groups, Jewish-interest newspapers and tabloids are acceptable neutral reliable sources for the claim that Stormfront is a Neo-Nazi website; I am also concerned at the lack of any detailed analysis or justification in the reliable sources (such as the academic paper and the ''Ottawa Citizen'' and ''Daily Telegraph'' articles) provided. I don't care if Stormfront is neo-Nazi, neo-cannibal or neo-angelic, I care that the Misplaced Pages article about it is comprehensive, neutral and accurate, and I don't think the cavalier attitude shown in this discussion is a step towards the that goal. <font color="404040">]</font> 18:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Skomorokh, you seem to be moving the goalpost. Certainly Bill Reilly isn't a reliable source for anything more than his own opinion. But mainstream newspapers, the SPLC, the ADL, etc, can all be regarded as reliable sources for this article. And yes, even passing mentions of the site as being "neo-nazi" are acceptable. There is nothing remarkable about calling this site "neo-nazi" - the founder has a neo-nazi history, they have hosted neo-nazi content and imagery, the members espouse neo-nazi concepts and use nazi-like avatars and usernames, etc. No one disputes that it is a neo-nazi website. We have sources from many countries and three continents. Continuing to argue this point eventually becomes tendentious. ]] ] 19:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Which goalposts are being moved? While mainstream newspapers are usually reliable (not having an agenda), SPLC/ADL etc. are certainly not neutral and should not be used to support statement of fact. Neither am I objecting to the number of sources, and the list below does little to further the improvement of the article. I have not disupted that the category ought to apply, only that it ought not in the absence of reliable sources (and I have not removed the category since a referenced claim was added). What is acceptable per conventions (as in the white supremacist/first hate site issue) is a convincing collection of non-partisan reliable sources such as scholarly studies and non-partisan newspapers which we can add as reflecting mainstream consensus on this issue. What is more desirable is proper coverage of the issue in such sources to do the topic justice. At present, we now have three abusive labels ("white supremacist", "hate site" and "Neo-Nazi") rejected by the subject(s) of the article which are not investigated or explained in any way. Reading the article it is not at all clear from the facts that Stormfront is primarily hateful, Nazi or supremacist. By namecalling without support we are effectively making the reader's minds up for them. That is a derisory attitude for an encyclopaedia to adopt. I'm trying to build this article into something that will meet ], and the vast majority of input from other editors (with notable exceptions) is to war over particular puerile identifications. <font color="404040">]</font> 20:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::What source do we have for Stormfront "rejecting" the neo-nazi label? If the article doesn't include material on their neo-nazi elements then we need to improve the article. If it passed GA without that information then it may be time for a review, because it would be incomplete. ]] ] 20:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::Bali ultimate pointed it out above:. I'm ''not'' suggesting that this is a reliable source by WP standards, but it does indicate the problems with using fleeting identifications. I strongly agree that the article needs more content on Stormfront's Neo-Nazism, though I don't think the absence of such is enough to merit a GAR as I've yet to be convinced by the sources that it's a major aspect of the topic. <font color="404040">]</font> 20:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::We have 18 sources that directly call this a neo nazi website, yet you don't think that's a major aspect of the topic? You reject numerous reliable sources because an admittedly unreliable source makes a passing, unattributed assertion that users reject the label? Let me quote you from July: "yup, one person writes a book is good enough unless someone else writes something contradicting them". We don't have a single proper source for anyone actually connected to the site rejecting the label. I see you've removed the category at least five times. Given the ample sourcing, I expect that it won't be removed again. ]] ] 20:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::::You're misrepresenting my position completely. In each instance of removing that category it was explicitly for the reason that it was not supported by reliable sources in the article. I consider ''The Guardian'', ''The Ottawa Citizen'', ''The Daily Telegraph'' and the Zhou et al article sufficient support for the inclusion of the Neo-Nazi attribution according to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, just as I considered the book you mention acceptable for the claim it supports (though note that that claim was not a value-free labelling, and that the book in question is a far more credible source than random newspaper articles). I also consider adding labels liberally without explanation or justification poor scholarship—specifically when the subject rejects the label (cf. "white supremacist")—and Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines deficient in this respect. Large numbers of sources referring to Stormfront as Neo-Nazi no more makes Neo-Nazism a major aspect of the topic than large numbers of sources referring to ] as female mean ''that'' identification is worthy of major discussion in the article. Frankly, I am quite tired of with a personal axe to grind, and spending most of this talkpage discussing pov-wording rather than the improvement of the article. <font color="404040">]</font> 21:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::This article will require "defending" as long as it's here. That's been the case from the beginning. Some years back the crew at Stormfront tried to organize to "correct the errors" in Misplaced Pages, which led Jimbo Wales to say that we'd change whatever rules were necessary to keep them from taking over. So there's a long history here. Anyway, is this matter settled now or is there still any dispute over this categorization? ]] ] 22:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::No, there hasn't been a dispute over the categorisation since the referenced claim was initially added. I'd like to replace some of the sources cited with those I mentioned above, but what with the threat of permanent banning and all I'll refrain for now. If you have come across discussion of the Neo-Nazism in one of the definitely reliable sources, it would be great to include it. If you have the time and inclination, input would be appreciated in the sections below this one. Thanks for your patience, <font color="404040">]</font> 22:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I'm glad that's settled. I still don't understand how this article got to GA status while excluding such a prominent part of the subject's notability. Omitting it meant that the article failed ] on the Good Article criteria. Perhaps the sources should be doubled-checked to make sure that all significant points of view are included, as required by ]. I'll check back in a month to see if we've been able to satisfy that item. ]] ] 23:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::{{user|Peanut4}} was the reviewer; you may want to take it up with them. All the content I added was taken with minimal alteration/interpretation from the references—in most cases it was a case of trying to pick morsels of mentions of Stormfront out of articles on broader topics rather than picking and choosing which perspectives to take from each source. I obviously have not come across much discussing Neo-Nazism, and there do not seem to be any other editors heavily active in editing the article at present, so I'm not sure whether waiting a month will achieve anything. If you're convinced 3a is an issue, then I would say the best thing to do would be to put it up for ] now. It might be worth bearing in mind ] related discussion regarding what ought to be covered vs. what can. Regards, <font color="404040">]</font> 23:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::If the editors who prepared this for GA didn't come across the eighteen sources isted below, and thus didn't find much discussion of the neo-nazi characterizations of the subject, then there seems to be a failure to do proper research. I'm not in a hurry to do a GA review, and it'd be better to address the identified problem and thus avoid it entirely. Let's see how it looks in a month. ]] ] 00:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::Well Will, it seems as if you're the only one here with access to the below sources, so I'm not sure what help I can be. If there's something freely accessible online you think ought to be included, drop me a link and I'll try to integrate it. <font color="404040">]</font> 00:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::The books are all available on . ]] ] 00:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:::. doesn't contain anything I'd include here; no previews of ''Citizen Cyborg'' or ''White Reign'' are available; the mentions in '''', '''' and '''' are the epitome of fleeting; ''Interactive Technologies and the Social Studies'' calls Stormfront "", and ''Friends'' calls it "" - neither with any analysis whatseover; '''' contains an interesting discussion on pages 181-187, but surprise surprise nothing on Neo-Nazism. Colour me extremely unimpressed—how on earth are we supposed to treat this as a major aspect of the topic when none of the sources thus far do? <font color="404040">]</font> 00:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
*be-yamenu, Universiṭat Tel-Aviv Proyeḳṭ le-ḥeḳer ha-anṭishemiyut, Universiṭat Tel-Aviv Faḳulṭah le-madaʻe ha-ruaḥ, B'nai B'rith, B'nai B'rith Anti-defamation League, Universiṭat Tel-Aviv, Makhon le-ḥeḳer ha-anṭishemiyut ṿeha-gazʻanut ʻa. sh. Sṭefan Roṭ, Wiener Library, and World Jewish Congress. Anti-semitism Worldwide. ress.
*Brean, Joseph. 2008. RCMP will not pursue charges in CHRC case; Human rights body accused of hacking into Web account. National Post, November 21.
*Butler, Don. 2007. Ottawa lawyer vs. Calgary 'Nazi'; The Canadian Human Right Tribunal has handed Richard Warman his 10th victory in his tireless crusade to put a stop to the spread of hate over the Internet, Don Butler writes. The Ottawa Citizen, October 27.
*Carroll, Al. 2008. Medicine Bags and Dog Tags.
*CLARKE, JIM, and DARREN BOYLE. 2008. IRELAND 'S ROLL OF SHAME IN BILE.COM. Sunday Mirror, September 14.
*DIANE Publishing Company. 1996. False Patriots.
*Flint, Colin. 2004. Spaces of Hate.
*Garber, Zev. 2006. Mel Gibson's Passion.
*Gorenfeld, John, and Barry W. Lynn. 2008. Bad Moon Rising.
*Hughes, James H. 2004. Citizen Cyborg.
*Kincheloe, Joe L. 2000. White Reign.
*LuisaTucker, Maria. 2007. A NEO-NAZI FIELD TRIP TO THE MET. The Village Voice 52, no. 24 (June 13): 23.
*Martorella, Peter H. 1997. Interactive Technologies and the Social Studies.
*McLachlin PalmBeachPostStaffWriter, Mary. 1998a. INTERNET SURFERS HIJACKED TO WEST PALM HATE SITE. Palm Beach Post, December 21.
*---. 1998b. INTERNET SURFERS HIJACKED TO WEST PALM HATE SITE. Palm Beach Post, December 21.
*Millar, Stuart. 2000. Leeds don to attack Lawrence findings. The Guardian, March 2.
*MIMS THESALTLAKETRIBUNE, BOB. 1998. More than 200 Internet sites qualify as `hard-core racist'. The Salt Lake Tribune, October 18.
*O'Hara, Michael. 2006. Friends.
*RADLER, MELISSA. 2004. Hate sites flood Internet - report. Jerusalem Post, April 20.
*Thussu, Daya Kishan, and Des Freedman. 2003. War and the Media.
Here is a list of eighteen newspapers and books that refer to Stormfront as a nazi or neo-nazi site. The burden of evidence has been met. ]] ] 18:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
:*A relevant ANI discussion is ]. ] <small>]</small>
::Skomorokh, the reason you are unable to find any reliable sources going into a detailed, scholarly analysis of whether Stormfront is a neo-Nazi website is precisely the same reason that neither you, I, nor anyone else can find a reliable source on the subject of motor racing going into a detailed analysis of whether ] knows how to drive a stick shift. When you ask every other editor here to assume good faith, what you're really asking for is a ]. You're clearly employing a rhetorical technique that I call pretending to be stupider than you actually are. Everyone here, including you, is bright enough to realize that Stormfront is a neo-Nazi website, as are the multiple, reliable sources who can recognize a garden implement when they see it without wasting their resources on an idiotic, useless, detailed scholarly analysis. --] (]) 22:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

== support continued description as neo-nazi ==

*'''support''' as nom (and to wrap this up). Like skok says above, there is an abundance of reliable sources that describe this group as neo-nazi. On top of that, they fit the description to a tee, engage in activities and speech typical of neo-nazis etc...
**This is a talkpage, not an election booth ;) I think we are quite aways from "an abundance of reliable sources that describe this group as neo-nazi", and the notion that "they fit the description to a tee, engage in activities and speech typical of neo-nazis etc..." is personal opinion, but I would agree that it is likely that an acceptably referenced attribution of the label will be forthcoming soon. Regards, <font color="404040">]</font> 16:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
::: ] ]] I spent 3 minutes on these latest cites.] (]) 16:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Do you really think Jewish Defence and the ADL are neutral sources here? <font color="404040">]</font> 17:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
A better question - does ANYONE on planet Earth (other than white supremacists, neo-Nazis, whatever) NOT consider the website to be a neo-Nazi site? --] (]) 17:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
: I can not find a single source saying they're not neo-nazi. I can find multiple reliable sources calling them neo-nazi. Furthermore, their founder is a neo-nazi, they have/do carry neo-nazi screeds, symbols, manifestos. They consort with neo-nazis. Many of their contributors self-identify as neo-nazi... scholars call them neo-nazis (as per the scholarly link that you removed from the article). etc... I suggest you desist from this course.] (]) 17:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
::Of course we cannot prove a negative, the burden of proof is on the "Stormfront is a Neo-Nazi website" claim and not on the contrary, per ]. I don't think B removed any scholarly links to the article. What course are you suggesting they desist from? <font color="404040">]</font>
:::He is obviously referring to you, not to me. The burden of proof that Stormfront is a Neo-Nazi site has overwhelmingly been met. --] (]) 18:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

::::I am new to this discussion and got here via conversations left at a couple of editors talk pages. Anyways, I've taken the time to read through everything and without any doubt in my mind Stormfront is a Neo-Nazi website. So if this is a strawpoll count me in as supporting that this article state it as such. I'm sorry but how anyone can say it's not is surprising since I looked at the refs provided. I have to say I'm surprised that this is even being discussed. --]] 20:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' continued description as neo-Nazi due to the overwhelming abundance of reliable sources.
:::''A: You can't prove a negative.''
:::''B: Really? I am not a giraffe, and I can prove it.''
:::--] (]) 22:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. To avoid original research, we have to describe it as the sources do. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Is this not a perfect example of a ]. Sources are there, if only Skomorokh, who's whitewashing of this article is getting tendentious, would quit removing them. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 17:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
::I have not removed any reliable sources from the article which supported the claim of Neo-Nazism, nor do I understand the purpose of this section when no-one is arguing to the contrary. Please substantiate your claim of "whitewashing", because to my eyes the article contains far more negative coverage of Stormfront now than it did a year ago before I started expanding it. <font color="404040">]</font> 19:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

== Google Books URLs ==

On a minor note, is it a good idea to include Google Books links in the url fields of the citation templates? My understanding was that we only added URLs when a full version of the text was available. Not sure of the usability value or the copyright implications. <font color="404040">]</font> 13:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
:On the usability value, if the quote can be found in the snippets, the link will be useful. On the copyright issue, there is a in the US which has received by the court, which appears to resolve the copyright issues arising from Google Books snippet views. ] (]) 19:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks, very helpful. I suppose there is no compelling reason to omit them, though I suspect this might hit a stumbling block at ] or ] at some point. <font color="404040">]</font> 19:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

== Screenshot ==

Can someone who knows how these things are done capture a screenshot of the site for infobox purposes? Something like ] would be great. <font color="404040">]</font> 15:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

== Removed per POV ==

I removed this because it is very POV. I am still reading things here but it's being heavily edited by ] which is making it difficult to do. Personally I think s/he should slow down a little and at least bring some of these changes to the talk page for discussion since s/he seems to think the article should be one way and most others disagree, but of course that is just my opinion. Please feel free to revert me if you disagree. --]] 21:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
:Are you suggesting that the ''Washington Post'' is insufficiently neutral? The wording I added is almost exactly that of the source, and gives the reader context on why the Stormfront members were concerned with Obama's candicacy. Could you please explain your concern? <font color="404040">]</font> 21:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

:Eli Saslow of WaPo: "Posters on Stormfront complain that Obama represents the end of "white rule" and the beginning of "multiculturalism." They fear that he will promote affirmative action, support illegal immigration and help render whites, who make up two-thirds of the U.S. population, "the new minority."" The text I added: " … feared that Obama would promote affirmative action, support ] and help render white people a minority in the United States." I'm afraid I don't see where the POV is supposed to have crept in. <font color="404040">]</font> 21:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

::It seems like cherry picking to me, sorry. --]] 21:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

:::How do you propose we put the claim that Stormfront members were concerned with Obama's candidacy in context? Why is listing the ''reasons'' for their concern not the best way of doing this? <font color="404040">]</font> 21:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Skomorokh, I think it's more likely that Crohnie thinks that not the Wahington Post, but you, are insufficiently neutral and cannot be relied upon to fairly characterize the contents of the article. --] (]) 22:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::I'm sure the editor can speak for herself. I won't deign to respond to your contemptible comments on my editorial integrity. <font color="404040">]</font> 00:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok on this one I will back off and state I am wrong. I apparently missed this or didn't digest it propery when I read it since I was reading a lot of different refs trying to catch up with things here. I would also point out that there are other comments made in this article that has this site using the Obama election win for other reasons to push their agenda other than the ones you are stating which is one of the reasons I felt that what you put in was POV and cherry picking. Here is what they said in one section; "One person put it this way: '''Obama for president paves the way for David Duke as president'''," said Duke, who ran for president in 1988, received less than 1 percent of the vote and has since spent much of his time in Europe. '''"This is finally going to make whites begin to realize it's a necessity to stick up for their own heritage, and that's going to make them turn to people like me. We're the next logical step'''." "'' Also I would like to point out this quote ''"The groups also despise Republican Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for his moderate views on immigration and his willingness to stick with the Iraq war. '''Better for Obama to win, leaders said, because his presidency could fuel a recruitment drive big enough to launch events that the white power movement has spent decades anticipating."''''' (Bolding and italics mine)

Now the bolding is, at least to me as important or more important to them then just the comments you selected, which I might add could be incorporated in what you want to put into the article. Anyways, I hope this explains better what I find in the article to be important comments by this group compared to what you chose. By no means are mine more important than yours, I am just trying to show that the article shows more than the selection you chose to present. I hope I am clear in what I am stating. If you look at my user page you will see that my medical causes me some problems here that I try to over come as best as I can but it still gets in my way unfortunately, sorry if this is a problem to anyone. Thanks again for listening. --]] 12:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:The problem with the bolded comments you have selected is that the journalist does not present them as representative of Stormfront. The first is a quote from David Duke, who if he is a Stormfront member is only one of tens of thousands, and we have no way of knowing (per ]) the extent to which his views are shared by Stormfront at large. Similarly, the second bolded comment is attributed by the journalist to "Neo-Nazi and white power groups", of which Stormfront is presumably only one component. This gives us the reverse problem that the Duke quote does – we cannot know the extent to which the aggregate concerns of all the groups follow those of Stormfront members; is Stromfront more or less radical/afraid/prejudicial than "Neo-Nazi and white power groups"? No way of knowing without engaging in ]. The selection I chose to excerpt (my method is simply to search for the word "Stormfront" and take information from the sentences in which the word appears):
{{bquote|Posters on Stormfront complain that Obama represents the end of "white rule" and the beginning of "multiculturalism." They fear that he will promote affirmative action, support illegal immigration and help render whites, who make up two-thirds of the U.S. population, "the new minority."}}
:There is no ambiguity here, no potential for misrepresentation; this is what our reliable source definitively says of "Posters on Stormfront" entire – not one poster, not all American Neo-Nazi and white power groups, but Stormfront posters. I'm still not clear on which POV I am supposed to be pursuing. <font color="404040">]</font> 12:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

So we still have three candidates for text to include; the two bolded claims uncovered by Crohnie and the "Posters on Stormfront complain" section quoted in my last comment. Now, the first bolded excerpt is from David Duke. Now Duke is a prominent figure in the Stormfront figure I gather (correct me if I am wrong, not too familiar with it), but it would be misrepresentation for us to use his views on this issue to stand in for those of Stormfront itself (the leaders/hierarchy) or the Stormfront community (members/posters) because there is no reliable source that I am aware of that says Duke's views on this issue and those of the latter are the same. As for the second bolded quote, looking at the source again I'm not even sure I stand by my above comment; I don't see that the source includes Stomrfront in "The groups" at all; the only way one could come to this conclusion is by reasoning that because the journalist discussed Stormfront earlier in the article, and Stromfront is a white supremacist group, it must be one of the white supremacist groups discussed. Now this is fine for informal reasoning, but it is complete ] for an encyclopaedia article. That again leaves us with the "Posters on Stormfront..." segment as the only acceptable candidate for inclusion. We could include some of the material from the following section, but I think Don Black's views are already sufficiently represented in the article. I propose re-adding the material from the "Posters on Stormfront" segment to the mention of Obama '08 in the article. Does anyone find flaws in my reasoning here or have another suggestion? <font color="404040">]</font> 14:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

== The box on the top ==

I just notice this . I don't remember having an editor listed like this in the box at the top unless they are involved in the article like a COI type of situation. But would someone explain to me why the box says that this editor knows the article well enough to be the one to ask questions to? Usually I see these types of questions asked on the talk page so that any editor may speak up, not having one editor listed. It looks like ] with it written like this. Thanks in advance for any replies. --]] 21:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
:I suggest you read the documentation of {{tl|Maintained}} and its talkpage. The template means that the editors listed are actively monitoring the article and are familiar with the sources used, thus being good people to ask questions of i.e. "are we sure that Stormfront began in 1995 and not 1991?". It does not grant the editors any authority, nor do you need their permission to alter the article in any way. Hope this helps, <font color="404040">]</font> 21:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
::I suggest you read the documentation of {{tl|Maintained}} and its talkpage, particularly this part:
:::*'''DO NOT''' place this template on the talk pages of controversial articles that are easily subject to ''POV wars''.
::Template removed per this very clear guidance. --] (]) 22:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
:::The article had been placid until quite recently (see talkpage activity from August to December), but no objection to removal of the template if you feel it is sufficiently controversial at present. <font color="404040">]</font> 14:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

== September 11th Jewish involvement issue ==

The ''War and the Media'' source listed above contains the fact that there was "much reference on Stormfront to a story, originally published in the Arab press that Jews had been warned not to show up at their World Trade Center offices on the day of the attacks" (see ]). The source claims that this "was used as evidence to buttress the arguments … that Mossad was behind the attacks" (see ]). This is interesting, and seems like something that would be a hot button issue for Stormfront, but I'm not sure it's substantive enough to merit inclusion, nor is it clear where it would fit in. Thoughts? <font color="404040">]</font> 14:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:See ]. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 17:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:: Agree with marlin. Only purpose would be to bolster the fact that this group is anti-semitic and conspiracy minded; there are better examples for both.] (]) 17:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

:::What are the better examples? The article does not go into any depth on the anti-semitism or conspiracy issues in the article; which sources are you alluding to? <font color="404040">]</font> 19:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

== Alteration to summary by ] ==

by ] strikes me as inaccurate in all three of its claims. Nowhere in the article as far as I can see is Stomrfront ''criticized'' for a "white supremacist agenda" - the only mentions of white supremacism are simple identifiers (as in "The website is notable for the white supremacist views of its members"), the focus of a documentary ("...the perceived threat of white nationalist and white supremacist organisations on the Internet"), one of the criteria the French and German governments use to censor websites (not attributed to Stormfront) and Don Black's goals ("a long-time advocate of increasing the mainstream appeal of the white supremacist movement"). Nowhere in the body of the article is the purported white supremacism of Stormfront ''criticised''. Nor is it referenced that the site has a white supremacist ''agenda'' – only that its members have white supremacist views.

Neither is Stormfront criticised for "holocaust denial" in the article. The only mention of the Holocaust is that French and German legislation exists forbidding "to websites which host white supremacist, Holocaust-denying, historical revisionist or similar material", and that Stormfront was removed from Google's indexes to comply with the legislation. It is illogical to conclude that the claim that Stormfront denies the Holocaust, and completely far fetched that there exists ''criticism'' of this in the text.

Thirdly, the revised text claims that Stormfront is criticised for "urging members to prepare for a race war." This, again, is a warped summary of the article, which only claims that there existed a discussion among some members of Stormfront "in which white nationalists were encouraged to join the U.S. Military in order to learn the skills necessary for winning a race war". Not only is the claim that Stormfront urged its members to prepare for a race war plainly unsupported by the text, there is no mention of criticism.

In sum, this edit is a non-neutral distortion of the facts in the article. While the lede does need extensive revising to keep track with changes in the article, twisting the sources to imply criticism that is not present is an irresponsible and reprehensible way to do it. What do other editors think? <font color="404040">]</font> 19:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

:What nonesense. I'm adding detail in body of the article to reflect this. What i removed was passive language of no real utility to a reader to get to why this group has been covered in the media, etc... Again, will be adding more on the activity of this org and commentary in a bit to address your other concerns that there is insufficient on this in the body of the article.] (]) 19:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

::What of what I wrote is nonsense exactly? Where is the criticism in the article of Stromfront's purported white supremacism, Holocaust denial and incitement to race war? Do you really think it is good practice to put in place your preferred version of the lead without bothering to substantiate it with reliable sources? <font color="404040">]</font> 19:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

:::Why doesn't this article contain any information about the subject's characterization as a website that promotes white supremacist, race war, and holocaust denial? Have the sources really been properly summarized and does the article really cover its topic without that material? Rather than fighting over the intro, I suggest editors work on fixing the body of the text so that it better represents the available sources. ]] ] 21:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

::::Again, if there is such coverage out there, I'd be more than happy to include it, just point the way. It is however an untenable policy to have the lede summarise an imaginary idealised article rather than what we have to work with now. <font color="404040">]</font> 21:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::Footnote "a" lists 15 sources for "white supremacism". That might be a good place to start looking. The sources are here, they just need to be summarized properly. ]] ] 21:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::Ah, I see; I'll have a look at those later, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out like your Google Books sources above. <font color="404040">]</font> 21:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::Right, I've had a look through the refs available online from the white supremacy footnote. and may have material to expand with, though nothing to confirm Bali ultimate's claims nor your suspicions. It would be a great help if you would identify what ''specifically'' you think is not being summarized properly. 22:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Are you saying that you are unable to find any sources that discuss Stormfront's "purported white supremacism, Holocaust denial and incitement to race war"? ]] ] 22:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::No, I am saying that I looked at the sources in footnote which you suggested that were accessible online and found no discussion of the topics mentioned (by "discussion" I mean analysis of the concepts/phenomena, not just using the terms "white supremacy"/"white supremacism"/"white supremacist" etc.). Did I miss something in those sources? <font color="404040">]</font> 22:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Where did you get this standard that sources must contain an analysis of a concept or phenomenon in order to be used? I don't recall seeing that in any WP policies or guidelines. If a source refers to "the white supremacist website Stormfront", or says "Stormfront users post messages denying the holocaust", then those are sufficient sources for characterizing the subject. As for this matter, the article does say that Google dropped links to the site from Germany in order to comply with German law forbidding linking to Holocaust denying websites. Is that in dispute? If not then why is there a problem mentioning it in the intro? ]] ] 23:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::"Where did you get this standard that sources must contain an analysis of a concept or phenomenon in order to be used?" I did not; what are you talking about? It's not in dispute that sources identify Stormfront as white supremacist sufficient for the requirements of policy. What is still lacking verification is Bali ultimate's three claims outlined above (though this is not really an issue as Bali has already removed them from the article). I have no objection to noting that Google de-indexed Stormfront – I put that in the lede myself for goodness sake! You maintain that the article is missing content from the sources cited; I am simply asking you to identify which specific content in which sources, so that I may add it and alleviate your concerns. <font color="404040">]</font> 23:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'm not going to fight over this with you. As before, I encourage you and other editors to make sure that this article meets ] by summarizing all significant points of view. It's apparent that it does not do so now. ]] ] 23:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Look, I want to make the article as neutral and comprehensive as possible, but you are not being very helpful – all you're saying is that there is a problem, you're not willing to elaborate on precisely what it is or which points of view in which sources you feel are not being summarized but you expect others to "just fix it" nevertheless. Perhaps others understand what you're getting at, but I can't be of much assistance with what you're giving us. <font color="404040">]</font> 00:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

== Racial/racialist and NPOV ==

Editors have twice replaced the word "racialist" with "racist" in the lead section of the article. The lead section is supposed to be a ], and the line summarized here reads
{{bquote|Stormfront is comprehensive and frequently updated, hosting files from and links to a number of racialist organizations, an online dating service (for "heterosexual White Gentiles only"), and electronic mailing lists that allow the white nationalist community to discuss issues of interest.}}
The "racialist organisations" segment is excerpted from the ], the relevant section of which (p.24), reads:
{{bquote|Stormfront offers files from a number of racialist groups, hypertext links to a number of others, and several e-mail discussion and news lists that allow the White nationalist community to discuss issues of interest}}
The wording is clear: the organizations are ] rather than ], and those terms have distinct meanings. This appears to be yet another instance of distorting the sources to support a particular POV rather than building a neutral and accurate article. <font color="404040">]</font> 20:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:Whitewashing POV. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 20:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
::Could you elaborate please? Are you contesting the fact that the source uses the term "racialist" rather than "racist", or that Misplaced Pages should use the terms the source uses rather than those personally favoured by editors? <font color="404040">]</font> 20:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

:::I find this ridiculous, I'm sorry but the article shows that this organization is a racist organization period. I would also like to state with watching todays activities I am taking this article off my watchlist. The reason is I find it very agrevating to see one editor jump in on every other editor's edit sometimes within seconds of them making an edit. I find the edit summaries rude and ] is at play. So I will be leaving here now. I do not edit in an environment like this where an editor leaves messages at other editors talk page or calls out an editor every time someone edits. Good luck, the article is yours as far as I am concerned. Sorry if this sounds strongly worded but I think enough has been said about this but yet it continues. Happy editing, --]] 20:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::To be honest I am quite tired of the bad faith accusations being thrown about here. I have initiated discussion on the contentious areas in order to work out issues and reach consensus; I am perfectly happy to collaborate with other editors, and believe that the back-and-forth editing between myself and Bali ultimate have improved this article. At no time have I demanded that editors consult me before making changes; I've reverted an edit once when I was not sure the editor was aware of the ramifications of their edits, and a second time on the category issue after fruitlessly asking the editor in question to ]. Your only action was to neutral, reliably sourced and relevant content, then but not restoring it. I've reported this page to the ]. <font color="404040">]</font> 20:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::::I also said in the edit summary to feel free to revert. If you look you were busy editing and edit conflicts continued. I admitted I was wrong but also pointed out the the article spoke about more things which you shot down. What I was saying is that you picked that specific item because you said it had to do with the site saying it and the other ones I mentioned wasn't from the site, fine. A newspaper article says all kinds of things, I personally think you are giving too much weight to items you think are important. As for bad faith assumptions, it's hard not to think you feel you own this article when you are adjusting edits as soon as they are made, hiding them because the editor didn't get the source in fast enough and questioning every editor who make a comment. No I haven't done anything, I need to read up on what's there first and this take me time because I am slow as an editor. I have to be able to read and sometimes reread the refs so I get it in my head. Sorry if that bothers you but being disabled causes me some problems towards being a quick and good editor. Now like I said, you won't have to worry about me, add your item back into the article that I deleted and please just leave me out of this, thanks. --]] 20:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::I apologize, I didn't see your "feel free to revert" comment. I'm wary of restoring my preferred version as I don't think we are agreed on what should be included yet and there is no hurry. Regards, <font color="404040">]</font> 21:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

===Further instances===
are further choice rewordings from ("racialists" to "racists") in contravention of the Kaplan ref, the cited section of which reads
{{bquote|Stormfront put Don Black in the spotlight, both for racialists throughout the world and for a number of watchdog groups—most notably the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Anti-Defamation League.}}
<font color="404040">]</font> 20:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:I'm glad you ] this article. Good job. A non-racist like me understands that "racialist" is a code word for a fucking racist. Give me a break. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 20:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Racialist is just an older term for racist.<ref>{{OED|racialist}} - "An earlier term than RACIST adj., but now largely superseded by it."</ref> There's really no question that it's a racist website.

*{{cite news | first = John | last = Lantigua | title = Local organizer, other supremacists say Obama's run boosts their cause | work = Palm Beach Post | publisher = The Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. | location = Florida | page = 1A | date = July 27, 2008 Sunday | accessdate = 2008-12-28 }}

*{{cite news | first = Ken | last = Sweeney | title = Mixed-race Rose contestant snubs racist websites | work = Sunday Tribune | publisher = The Sunday Tribune plc | location = Ireland | page = N03 | date = August 3, 2008 | accessdate = 2008-12-28 }}

*{{cite news | first = Nick | last = Ryan | title = Life: Online: Fear and loathing: Websites expressing extreme or racist views have increased dramatically this year. Nick Ryan on plans to crack down on haters | work = The Guardian | publisher = Guardian Newspapers Limited | location = London | page = 23 | date = August 12, 2004 | accessdate = 2008-12-28 }}

] <sup>]</sup> 20:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for the input, Tom. We are not talking about the website itself here but third parties, as you will see if you read the sections quoted. If it is true that "racialist" and "racist" are always used synonymously, then it seems unimportant which is used, but I do not believe that this is the case (our own article on ] does not indicate support for the claim, for example). <font color="404040">]</font> 20:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
::You can assume I've read before commenting. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
::What distinctions are you trying to make between "racist" and "racialist" in this case? Also, what distinctions are you trying to make between "the website itself" and "third parties"? Most of the content of the website is its bulletin boards, which are filled with comments by "third parties". ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 20:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Jay, see the quotes from the source above and my comment below; this is not about Stormfront itself. I'm not trying to make a distinction; English is not my first language - I am simply unconvinced that the source is necessarily using the terms synonymously, which seems to be an ] to me. <font color="404040">]</font> 20:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
::::See the source below. "Racialist" is simply an older, superseded term for "racist". Now, what distinction were you trying to make between "the website itself" and "third parties"? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::The dictionary says "largely superseded"; the two dictionary entries come which come up in the first page of results in a Google search for "racialist" indicate a distinction ( and vs. ). "Racist" clearly has a more negative connotation, and I do not understand we we would want to replace the term used in the source with one with such negative connotations; it does not seem to be in the spirit of NPOV. As to the website vs. third parties question, if you look at the , you'll see the terms are not being applied to Stormfront itself, but rather third party groups, organisations and individuals (rendering Tom's sources above orthogonal). Hope this helps. <font color="404040">]</font> 21:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
::(ec)Maybe the paragraph is unclear out of context, but it is specifically calling the organisations Stormfront links to and those for whom Stormfront put Don Black in the spotlight, rather than Stormfront itself, racialist. I assumed by "the website" you were referring to Stromfront, which perhaps is were the confusion arose. I don't have access to the OED definition; would you mind telling us what it says? Thanks, <font color="404040">]</font> 20:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm getting tired of your whitewashing. When are you going to admit that you're either a Stormfront supporter, or in fact a part of the organization? ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 21:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::Orangemarlin, there's no point in discussing individuals. Simply deal with the edits, and we should have no trouble keeping this article factual and in compliance with ], ], and ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
::::: *'''support''' use of "racist" in place of "racialist" a word that is used in this context by racists to obscure their true intents. Also, it's the term used by a preponderance of reliable sources that address this org.] (]) 21:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Bali, neither "racist" or "racialist" are used in the article to refer to Stormfront, but to third parties. Are you suggesting Jeffrey Kaplan (the source of the term) uses "racialist" rather than "racist" to obscure his true intent? <font color="404040">]</font> 21:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::: Let me repeat a PREPONDERANCE of sources calls this group racist: NYT, WP, Salon, ADL, NAACP, the Weistenthal people, scholars of racist hate groups like Brian Levin, CNN, the LA Times, etc... That's why they should be called racists. It's what they are, and it's how most every reliable source describes.] (]) 21:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Call which group racist? Do you appreciate that we are not talking about Stormfront here? <font color="404040">]</font> 21:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::You keep saying what "we" are talking about. I'm not sure you're in the best position to make that determination. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::Allow me to clarify: did not change the description of Stormfront. The article does not describe Stormfront as racist or racialist, nor has it in recent memory. <font color="404040">]</font> 21:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
<--Okay, maybe I've misunderstood. From the article as it is now, what changes would you like to see? ] <sup>]</sup> 21:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:I would like the three edits reverted so that the groups and individuals are described as the source describes them - "racialist". The arguments for changing to racist seem to be to boil down to racist=racialist anyway and/or using racialist instead of racist is "POV whitewashing". If the terms are synonymous, then the latter argument would seem not to apply. If the latter argument does apply and the former does not, either the source cited is guilty of POV whitewashing, or Misplaced Pages should not follow reliable sources in its prose, neither of which are positions that seem particularly plausible to me. I don't see why we ought not to use the verified terminology; we have no way of knowing whether the unnamed groups and individuals in question are racists. Regards, <font color="404040">]</font> 21:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
::I've added sources that describe them by the more common synonym, "racist". There are many more, but these should suffice to deal with your concerns. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Your sources seem to apply to Stormfront—again, no-one is disputing that Stormfront is considered a racist site. It's the third parties referred to that are in question. Thanks very much for the addition nevertheless (though they need to go in the body of the article rather than the summary). Regards, <font color="404040">]</font> 22:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Ah, you've finally explained what you mean by "third parties". The source you had already sufficed for that, since "racialist" is just an older deprecated term for "racist", but I've added another source just to satisfy you. Regarding going in the body, the additions need to be in both places. I would be helpful if you could add them to the body too. Thank you. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for the source on the links to organisations; though I've changed the wording to "white racist" in concurrence with the source. If there are no objections, I'll copy the new lead content to the body of the article somewhere, and restore the other mentions to the source wording. I've also changed the formatting of the refs you added to use citation templates and info from ]; hope you don't mind. Thanks again for the additions, <font color="404040">]</font> 19:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::Seeing as no-one seems to have a problem with this proposal, I'll move ahead with it in the next day or two (barring objections). <font color="404040">]</font> 14:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::: I didn't even know what the "proposal" is. If it's to substitute "racialist" for "racist" I'm strongly opposed.] (]) 20:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::No, it is not to blanket replace one term with another. The proposal was to incorporate Jayjg's additions to the lede into the body of the article and to use the terminology used by the reliable sources in the article - for example that Stormfront is a "racist" rather than "white nationalist" website, and that it attracted attention from "racialists". <font color="404040">]</font> 20:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The difference between "racialist" and "racist" is there, although most people would probably regard it as a distinction without a difference. Racialist in my view is a person intensely concerned about race matters, particularly regarding advocacy for the benefit of his race. Racist is a person who thinks his race is better or others are worse - not just different or worthy of pride. The two words are probably often misused by both sides of the debate, but Misplaced Pages should not play that game. Wholesale replacement of "racialist" with "racist" is not right. But nor is whitewashing true racism by calling it "racialism." There is room for the proper use of BOTH terms in this article. ] (]) 20:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for the comment, interesting. I agree that there is room for both terms, and that Misplaced Pages should not play ideological games but stick to what the sources say, i.e. "Stormfront is a racist website that appeals to racialists". <font color="404040">]</font> 20:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

::Yeah, but my definition doesn't jibe with the dictionary, and therein lies the problem. For example, the NAACP is not in my view a racist organization, but they are racially oriented and therefore racialist (just looking at the word etymology). Maybe there is a better term for it, but I can't think of what it would be.] (]) 20:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

===References===
<references/>

== Footnotes and references ==

These might be easier to follow and more useful to the reader if they were consolidated into one section of references. Thoughts? ] <sup>]</sup> 22:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

:(great minds etc.) I think the "sources that consider" references should be treated with consistently for the "hate site" "white supremacy" and "Neo-Nazi" instances. Either we integrate them all into the References section or put them all in Footnotes as before, but the current set-up does not make sense. I prefer to leave editorial comment out of the References section, but if consensus is for it I won't object. <font color="404040">]</font> 22:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

:I think is clearest and most useful, as it unambiguously distinguishes between direct citations and mass references with commentary. Footnotes and references are categorically different imo. <font color="404040">]</font> 22:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've consolidated the two into one References section as suggested. Is everyone happy with this? <font color="404040">]</font> 18:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

== Conflict of interest ==

I, once again, respectfully request that ] divulge his relationship to either Neo-Nazi's in general or Stormfront specifically. Otherwise, I'm going to place a COI tag on every one of his edits. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 23:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
*Um, no. That's not a reasonable request, and your proposed action is, shall we say, ]y. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
**I've moved on. Drinking a beer. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 06:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I demand to know what kind of beer OrangeMarlin is drinking. ] (]) 04:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

== Ray and Marsh ref ==

Any objections to using (currently in External links) as a source in the article? It looks reliable to me, and can be used to substantiate the claim that Stormfront hosts Holocaust revisionist material as well as providing info on Stormfront for Kids and the attempt by Stormfront to legitimise itself by deference to documented authority, to name just some of the topics covered. Any objections? <font color="404040">]</font> 19:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, '']'', being a peer reviewed scholarly journal published by the ] would seem to meet our requirements for a reliable source, and if not, both and seem to be credentialed experts in appropriate fields (fulfilling ]) so given the absence of any discussion, I am going to go ahead and use this as a source. <font color="404040">]</font> 10:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
: What do you propose using it as a source for? Haven't read the whole thing yet, though there characterization of Stormfront's efforts and motivations is spot on. ''Stormfront promotes a message of "White Pride World Wide." A major purpose is the creation of a virtual community for both white extremist families and singles. The site provides direct or indirect links to a variety of extremist sites on the Internet, such as neo-Nazis, skinheads, and various Christian-identity groups that espouse racism, anti-Semitism and Christian fundamentalism. Stormfront is an Internet-based, Neo-Nazi organization."] I'll also point out that they consider it an organization, and I would have to agree. It is the shopwindow for a political movement managed by Don Black.] (]) 14:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

::I've used it as a source for quite a bit, actually; you can trace the citations . Hope this helps. <font color="404040">]</font> 14:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

== Website or organisation? ==

Related to ], I'm wondering whether it is more accurate to call Stormfront a website/"Internet forum" as were are at present, or as a community/organisation. The sources seem split. refer to it as "an Internet-based, Neo-Nazi organization", which strikes me a step in the direction of greater accuracy than our "white supremacist, neo-Nazi Internet forum". Also to bear in mind is that Stormfront existed before it was a website. Thoughts? <font color="404040">]</font> 11:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
: Your ownership problems with tihs article are a problem. You've just bloated the lede for the 3rd or 4th time in the past few days with Blacks self-serving justifications and stylings for his racist, white supremecist agenda. I'll leave alone for now because of 3rr but it's increasingly looking like a game; you add in crap, it gets reverted, you add in slightly different crap, and other editors get tied in knots with policy as they try to help write a neutral article, rather than one littered with a noxious point of view.] (]) 17:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
:: Also, all those citations ended up in the lede because you said the overwhelming evidence that they are in fact a neo-nazi, white supremcist, racist group were not supported by reliable sources. Now you edit them out saying they're not needed? This article is rapidly looking like it's lost GA status; i've never asked for a review on this issue, but after i figure out how it's done and wait a day or so for others to chime in, that's almost certainly what i'm going to do.] (]) 17:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
:::The claim that I "said the overwhelming evidence that they are in fact a neo-nazi, white supremcist, racist group were not supported by reliable sources" is not true. I have consistently supported the inclusion of the description of Stormfront as Neo-Nazi, white supremacist and racist after reliable sources were provided for each. The lead is a different issue entirely as ] explains. Because no-one disputes that the claims in the lead are supported by reliable sources in the article, it is not necessary to visually clutter it with inline citations (though note that the three footnotes for white supremacist, Neo-Nazi and first hate site remain, in case a passing editor finds these non-neutral and tries to remove them in ignorance of consensus, as has happened before). Like I said to Will Beback above, I completely welcome a ] and was planning to put the article up for ] in a few days; I outside scrutiny of the article. If you need help trying to get the GAR underway I can assist in the process side of things. Regards, <font color="404040">]</font> 17:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
::(ec)Bali, I am trying to accommodate your edits and keep the article improving; the article incorporates your quote from the ADL, and ''USA Today'', the lede segment referring to multiculturalism and race wars that you objected to are no longer there, the lede now describes the organisations as racist rather than racialist as you wanted, I let your removal of the tags I added to the SPLC ref questioning whether it called Stormfront a "Neo-Nazi website" stand, even though it does not, because I am not interested in edit-warring, I removed the "sub-fora" wording you wanted gone and used "topics" instead, left out the bit about Black and "defending the white race" as you wished and the criticism of the documentary from the lede. I'm completely willing to discuss all of my edits and believe that the article is better off as a result of our back and forth, and hope you will continue editing it in a collegial manner. Sincerely, <font color="404040">]</font> 17:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Skomorokh, can I suggest you not edit the page for a few days? Others can look at what's there and deal with any concerns, and maybe the article will stabilize at a consensus version. If nothing else, we can all do something else for a day or two and things will cool off. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
:I have no problem with the page not being edited for a while (and have that the article might be full-protected so that we can work out the individual issues and come to consensus). How does that sound? <font color="404040">]</font> 18:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
::It sounds like you manipulated the process to get the page locked in your preferred version, then disingenuously presented this as a generous accommodation. Live and learn, I guess. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
:::I presented nothing as a "generous accommodation"; I suggested it as a solution to the content disputes, because editors were unwilling to discuss their proposed improvements on this talkpage. Tom, I am an editor in good standing. Been here over two years, never been blocked, never been involved in an Arbitration case or RFC/U, and managed to contribute plenty of Good and Featured content without having my editorial integrity called into question. My fairness, trustworthiness and good faith have been besmirched here; I don't particularly mind as long as the article gets written professionally and neutrally. But it's is not productive to attack the editor rather than focus on the edits; drop it. <font color="404040">]</font> 19:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
::If you don't want to be called on tactics like that, don't engage in them. If you don't want to know what I think, don't ask. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Fair point: I'm more interested in hearing what you really think that not having uncharitable things said about me. I maintain that I don't use "tactics" to "win" discussions, but we will have to agree to differ on that for now. <font color="404040">]</font> 20:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

== Images ==

Anyone got any ideas for images to add to the article? At the moment we only have three, two of which are copyrighted. I was considering an image of Jefferson/Jesus/Darwin/MLK for the "Tactics" section, but seeing as an editor took umbrage at an image of Bill O'Reilly being included in the Controversies section, I thought I would ask here for suggestions instead. What do you think? <font color="404040">]</font> 17:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
:Misplaced Pages isn't a picture book and doesn't have to have pictures decorating every article. I am often told that I have a poor imagination, but I cannot imagine an encyclopedic use for any of the four images being included. If we had a free image of the founder of the website or any important people involved, incorporating those photos would be fine, but having a photo of someone merely because they are mentioned on the website or have mentioned the website isn't really appropriate. It isn't as big of an issue from a BLP standpoint for MLK or Darwin - they are dead and lived in pre-internet times so nobody skimming the article would ever incorrectly infer that they are a supporter of the website and even if they did, there's no libel there. But it still would look out of place from an editorial standpoint. --] (]) 19:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
::I can agree with that. It's a pity we don't have an image of Black. Do you think we could get a screenshot of the homepage for the infobox at least though? <font color="404040">]</font> 19:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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

== "One of the earliest and continually published websites" ==

] has removed this claim in . Although it is supported by a reliable source, I don't really think the claim adds much value to the article, and it's accuracy is disputed (There could be some confusion between the 1990 and 1995 origin dates though). I agree with B that we are better off without it. Thoughts? <font color="404040">]</font> 18:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
:The ] did not even exist until 1992. In 1990, ] hadn't invented it yet and so there were zero websites at that time. The site owner may have run a racist organization or ] (the article says ] right now, so that's an amusing alternate possibility) but there was no website. The claim that it was one of the "earliest" websites is almost certainly merely other sources reprinting the website's own propaganda without fact checking it under the assumption that they wouldn't make it up. --] (]) 19:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
::Oh, that is concerning. Internet history is not one of my areas of expertise I'm afraid, so thanks for catching that. Are there any other claims in the article that look like regurgitated propaganda? <font color="404040">]</font> 19:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
:::I remember thinking in early 1995 or so when my dad first got internet access and the browser that eventually became Internet Explorer (I forget the name now) on his ] at his work, "this is too slow to be useful to anyone and will never last". I guess I missed that one slightly. ;) --] (]) 19:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Hah! ] :) <font color="404040">]</font> 19:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
::B, that would have been ]. ] (]) 19:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

== Summary of the ideology section ==

The summary in the lede of the ideology section was . Does another editor want to have a go at summarizing it? The whole article needs to be summarized per ]/]. Gracias, <font color="404040">]</font> 18:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's how the section reads, minus citations and links:
{{quotation|Stormfront presents itself as engaged in a struggle for unity, identifying culture, speech and free association as its core concerns, though members of Stormfront are especially passionate about racial purity. It promotes a lone wolf mentality, linking to white nationalist theorist Louis Beam's influential work on leaderless resistance and offering a sympathetic assessment of Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, a white supremacist who committed suicide after a racially-motivated killing spree in June 1999. Scholar Violet Jones notes that Stormfront—like organizations such as Minuteman Project and the Military Order of the Stars and Bars—credits its mission to the founding myth of an America "created, built, and ideologically grounded by the descendants of white Europeans." Asked in 2008 by an interviewer for Italian newspaper la Repubblica whether Stormfront was a twenty-first century version of the Ku Klux Klan without the iconography, Black responded affirmatively, though noting that he would never say so to an American journalist.}}
Ideally, we could find a way of summarizing this in one sentence a line or two long. I'd argue that the Smith mention and Louis Beam do not need to be summarised, as they are only there to illustrate the point that Stormfront "promotes a lone wolf mentality". Similarly, The Minutemen Project and the Military Order of the Stars and Bars can be omitted, as they are only there as an aside rather than as a crucial point. Violet Jones is not important to be mentioned in a summary of Stormfront, nor is the fact that Black's statement about the KKK was published in ''la Republlica''. That leaves us with the following factoids:
*Stormfront presents itself as engaged in a struggle for unity
*Stormfront identifies culture, speech and free association as its core concerns
*Stormfront members are especially passionate about racial purity
*Stormfront promotes a lone wolf mentality
*Stormfront credits its mission to the founding myth of an America created, built and ideologically grounded by the descendants of white Europeans
*Don Black sees Stormfront as a twenty-first century version of the Ku Klux Klan without the iconography
I don't think this could all be summarized in one sentence, but the KKK bit is arguably important enough to get its own sentence (which would wrap the lead section up nicely). That would leave us with five factoids; I'd be happy with any two or three of them going in, though I'm particularly partial to the Violet Jones analysis, which seems the least likely candidate for "self-promotion" by Stormfront. Thoughts? <font color="404040">]</font> 20:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

== protected ==

I've protected the article from editing owing to way too much back and forth over the last day or so. Please use this time to try and grow a consensus here on the talk page. ] (]) 18:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
: Gwen -- We've had <s>four</s> eight or so editors trying to work on this in one direction (for instance, keeping the lede short and stormfront advertising slant out of the lede), and these eight or so (i'm one of them) have been constantly overridden by another, single editor. While i suppose full protection isn't a bad place to start, it's not the ideal one. I really do believe we have a behavioral/POV problem here involving one editor. If you haven't (i'm pretty sure you have) cast an eye over the edit history of the article for the past few days.] (]) 19:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

::Yes, full protection (as I see it) is an outcome brought by a failure of open editing and should be kept short. I only protected the page to stop the back-and-forth. I do see and understand the worries. If there is a clear consensus among the active editors here, hopefully it can now be acknowledged, with further discussion as to how edits outside that consensus can be dealt with. As for behaviour, has there been ] or ]? ] (]) 19:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

::Skomorokh, it does look like the article would settle down if you stopped editing the text and dealt with your concerns here on the talk page. Are you willing to do this? ] (]) 19:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

:::Gwen, with all due respect I think you have it backwards: I have contributed the majority of the text that currently makes up the article, and the majority of that of the additions of the last four days. I don't think anyone is disputing that I have referenced it to reliable sources. It is other editors who have concerns with what I have added. As you will notice on this talkpage, I have repeatedly tried to initiate discussion on the editors' concerns with little constructive response. The editors disputing the content have removed what they did not like instead of bringing it up on the talkpage in most instances. I am happy for us all to meticulously go through the article and discuss how to improve it, and to engage in discussion with anyone who has a problem with what I have added. <font color="404040">]</font> 19:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
::::The burden is not on everyone else to justify why your additions should not stand, but on you to justify the additions. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::Well, how about I say I believe that the material added is relevant and faithfully supported by reliable sources, other editors dispute specific instances where they feel this is not the case, and we see if we can reach consensus? <font color="404040">]</font> 20:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

On further review, I've lifted the protection. Skomorokh, please think about not making edits to the article unless and until you have consensus for each edit. Speaking neutrally, I do think the current text gives ] to Stormfront's PoV and is lacking in sourced criticism. Moreover, now that I've had time to look over the contribution history and talk page more thoroughly, I think there is a group of active editors who can likely reach a consensus in handling these worries. ] (]) 20:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for your time Gwen. I should think that all editors ought to refrain from editing unless there is consensus first. If you are aware of any sourced criticism that can be neutrally accommodated but has not been, please let us know. AFAIK, there are no pro-Stormfront/white supremacist/nationalist/Neo-Nazi sources used in the article at present. <font color="404040">]</font> 20:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

::Hopefully, editors will stick to making consensus edits. ] (]) 20:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If the article will be stable enough for me to read it and check the references before it changes, I'm sure we can make progress. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
:As long as there are no mass removals of cited content or moving claims away from what the sources say, I'm happy to sit on my hands and chat here. <font color="404040">]</font> 21:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

==Proposals for the lede==

I have a number of proposals for the lede and the rest of the article. I understand that arguing for large, block changes in these sorts of cases is less likely to get anywhere than bit sized ones. In that spirit i have two proposals to start with, and obviously *'''support''' them both as nom.

1. The current third graph should be changed to read "The website is structured as a theme-based discussion forum with numerous boards for topics including "Ideology and Philosophy - Foundations for White Nationalism," "Science, Technology and Race - Genetics, ], racial science and related subjects," and "Revisionism - Reexamining history, particularly the court historians' version of World War II." Stormfront also hosts news stories, sells merchandise, provides extensive links to racist organizations and has content aimed at children. The site has a coat of arms featuring a Celtic cross common to neo-fascist iconography surrounded by the motto "White Pride World Wide"."

(summary of changes: specifics on some of the forums so readers will know what they discuss rather than generic, non-specific "has a science forum, has a philosophy forum, etc"... tweaks language, removes puffery about the "adept" design of its bog-standard format).
::'''Oppose'''. I think we can remove what the topics for the boards are completely. These are too long and the others could be construed as making the intent. I also think the last line (about the "logo") should be dropped. Trying to link the Celtic cross with neo-fascist iconography would be OR. ] (]) 22:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

:::Roger Eatwell is cited as linking the Celtic cross with neo-fascist iconography in the ] section. <font color="404040">]</font> 22:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

2. To remove the current fourth graph from the lede in its entirety. This is the current text: "Black's purposes in establishing Stormfront were to highlight what he perceived to be anti-white discrimination, to serve as a counterpoint to the mainstream news media and to foster a community of white nationalists. Tactics used by Stormfront to support its ideas include the quotation of respected documents and quotes, the use of biblical scriptures and the incorporation of Darwinian evolutionary theory in arguments."

I do believe their attempt to convince people of their views using what are widely considered to be mischarecterizations of Darwin and Scripture should be addressed in the article but this is not appropriate for the lede, and certainly not in the highly-favorable language that Don Black, the neo-nazi who founded the site, would like used.] (]) 20:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

::'''Support'''. I'd like to find someone that says they misuse the quotes and scientific principles so tht we can blatantly say so. Until we can find some one to say so we're stuck with "using quotes" and that sounds like they are using them correctly. ] (]) 22:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
::: Padillah -- this source ] has a lot of good stuff in this vein. When i made this proposal i thought we were in full protection mode. We no longer are. Have at it. It was my intent to write up my opinion of how it should be used and take it here, but by all means read it and if you want to make edits on that basis, have at it. Won't be me tonight (went out, drank too much).] (]) 01:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

::::That is the source I took the original info from. If it had said Stormfront had misused/manipulated the quotes/texts, I would have written it that way. Let's look at what it actually says about Stormfront, taking the Deference to Documented Authority section as an example:
{{quotation|The Aryan Nations uses the American Declaration of Independence for justification and imitates it in its Aryan Declaration of Independence (http://www.nidlink.com/~aryanvic/declar.html). A list of grievances about the current federal government, akin to those about the British monarchy, is offered as justification for this call to action against the federal government. Another example of this technique is a reference to Samuel Adams' speech at the Philadelphia State House, made on 1 August 1776 (Stormfront, 14 August 2000, p. 1) on Stormfront's main page. The following excerpt is offered in an effort to legitimize Stormfront's agenda:

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

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

Stormfront's Web site offers numerous quotations from famous Western politicians and philosophers. Each quotation is an anachronism.}}
::::So we know from this source that one person has taken a quotation out of context in an effort to legitimize Stormfront's agenda. Okay, fine, but that is not of interest to us because it's only one individual case and does not speak to Stormfront in general. What is of interest is the last line that does; it says Stormfront ''itself'' offers quotations from famous Western figures that are anarchronistic. Now, that does not logically imply misrepresentation (they could be anachronistic because the person quoting has a poor grasp of history or exegesis), but it's good to put in the article. <s>Again, it looks like you and Padillah have as a first priority having your POV that Stormfront misuses science/religion/history in the article, and as a second priority to justify that perspective with clear statements in reliable sources</s> (Struck, see below comment). If the support is there, I'm all for its inclusion. I think that is backwards; sources first, summary second is the editorially responsible way to go. <font color="404040">]</font> 14:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::Pardon me if I take umbrage with someone not only establishing that I have an agenda but telling me what my agenda is. My "POV" is to write an article ''about'' the Stormfront site, not to make a reprint of the site in WP. "Neutral" doesn't mean "nice", it means reporting from both sides. I'll thank you to keep accusations of POV pushing and agendas out of the conversation. You don't like it when it's done to you so please respect others as you would have us respect you. ] (]) 14:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::Woah, sorry, poor choice of terms on my part perhaps. I did not mean to imply that either of you were POV-pushing, because I don't think you are (everyone has a point of view, but I don't see you two trying to push yours anywhere). What I meant was that I thought you and Bali ultimate seem to agree that Stormfront misrepresents things (i.e. that this was your point of view), and wanted that put in the article, and that it seemed like a secondary priority to see what the sources said on the issue. I apologise unreservedly for the misunderstanding and have struck my above comments. I hope we can work together without acrimony here, and I'll be sure to phrase my comments more carefully in future. Respectfully, <font color="404040">]</font> 15:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I appreciate it and understand now what you saw happening. If you look again I hope you'll see that what I want is a citation so we can stop dancing around the fact. As you mentioned, noting that a quote is anachronistic doesn't help much. There's way too many reasons for a person to make what may appear to be an anachronistic quote for this fact have any bearing on the article. What we need is either someone saying Stormfront is misquoting people (or, at the very least, misusing the quotes out of context) or drop it. The effort to try and say it without using the words is not helping. ] (]) 15:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::OK, we are agreed that we will have to find a source for the claim of misrepresentation before putting it anywhere in the article. You don't think the Tactics section as it stands adds value to the article? Or is this just about emphasis in the lede? <font color="404040">]</font> 15:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

==Back and forth on process==

: Ah, i see that protection has been lifted. This might be a good way to work for a little while, though. I guess we'll see what happens.] (]) 20:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

:Bali, it seems to me that your issues are with the actual text of the body first and foremost - the weighting of what I included in the lede was an editorial decision, sure, but the wording and content were taken almost verbatim from the sections. Again I must stress that the lede should be an accessible summary of the article, nothing more. If the body of the article needs work, then let's concentrate on getting sources to address that, but let's not alter the lede to what we wish it would be like without support from reliable sources. <font color="404040">]</font> 20:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
:: As my forebearers said "The fish rots from the head." Let's start with the head.] (]) 20:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
:::You've got it backwards - the article does not take its cue from the lead; the lead follows the article blindly. What do you intend to do, change the lead to what you would like it to say, and then remove the cited statements in the texts that disagree with your perspective? <font color="404040">]</font> 21:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
:::: Feel free to say if you support or oppose in the sub-section i've created up above.] (]) 21:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

== Content to add from The Racist Next Door article ==

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

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

Any comments/objections/suggestions? <font color="404040">]</font> 21:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

:I changed them to numbers so we can refer to them easier (hope that's OK). I see no point in mentioning #1 without something to contrast it to. To mention that he spends more time maintaining the site than "doing something else" is informative. To say he spends a lot of time maintaining the site doesn't tell me anything. Or if that was to be used as a counterpoint that I may be missing (I'm new to this article), then OK.
:(2) I think is a great addition.
:(3) is again, mentioning something with no counterpoint that I can see. It even reads like an incomplete sentence "Black's list of links and pictures..." and then doesn't go anywhere. Is there a counterpoint I'm not seeing? ] (]) 22:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks for weighing in and helpfully numbering things :) Regarding (1), our article currently contains the line "]"; I'd like to slip the claim that he spends most of his time maintaining Stormfront in there somewhere. Similarly, we claim that "]". By using (3), we can go into detail about what kinds of sites these are, instead of just telling the reader their ideology. (3) is a sentence fragment, you are correct, the full sentence can be read at the article . Hope this helps, <font color="404040">]</font> 22:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

== Some potential references ==

We should rely less on self-description. The article as it is now spends too much time articulating the site's views. Some books that may be useful:

*{{Cite book | publisher = Lexington Books | isbn = 0739117726 | pages = 184 | last = Marmura | first = Stephen | title = Hegemony in the Digital Age: The Arab/Israeli Conflict Online | date = 2008-04-28 }}

*{{Cite book | publisher = Rutgers University Press | isbn = 0813538718 | pages = 272 | last = Lehman | first = Peter | coauthors = Peter Lehman | title = Pornography: Film And Culture | date = 2006-07-25 }}

*{{Cite book | publisher = The MIT Press | isbn = 0262550679 | pages = 200 | last = Everett | first = Anna | title = Learning Race and Ethnicity: Youth and Digital Media | date = 2007-12-01 }}

*{{Cite book | publisher = Sage Publications Ltd | isbn = 0761943137 | pages = 266 | last = Thussu | first = Daya | coauthors = Des Freedman | title = War and the Media: Reporting Conflict 24/7 | date = 2003-06-02 }}

*{{Cite book | edition = 2 | publisher = Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. | isbn = 0742553809 | pages = 264 | last = Nacos | first = Brigitte L. | title = Mass-Mediated Terrorism: The Central Role of the Media in Terrorism and Counterterrorism | date = 2007-04-28 }}

*{{Cite book | publisher = Rutgers University Press | isbn = 0813529883 | pages = 336 | last = Friedman | first = James | title = Reality Squared: Televisual Discourse on the Real | date = 2002-05 }}

*{{Cite book | publisher = Sage Publications, Inc | isbn = 1412913691 | pages = 536 | last = Dowd | first = Nancy E. | coauthors = Dorothy G. Singer, Robin Fretwell Wilson | title = Handbook of Children, Culture, and Violence | date = 2005-12-21 }}

*{{Cite book | edition = 1 | publisher = Routledge | isbn = 0415362334 | pages = 180 | last = Durham | first = Martin | title = White Rage: Extreme Right and American Politics | date = 2007-12-11 }}

*{{Cite book | edition = 1 | publisher = Jones & Bartlett Publishers | isbn = 0763755249 | pages = 150 | last = Borgeson | first = Kevin | coauthors = Robin Valeri | title = Terrorism in America | date = 2008-09-05
}} }}
Should we link to or display the url the ]?
] <sup>]</sup> 22:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
*(A) - '''No'''

*(B) - '''YES'''
:I agree. Are these available online at all? If not, could you excerpt some quotes from them relating to Stormfront? Thanks for the great idea, initiative and effort you've shown in starting this section, it's much appreciated. <font color="404040">]</font> 22:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
] (]) 22:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

*'''No''' - As stated previously, I understand that Misplaced Pages is not censored, but we can also apply common sense on a case by case basis. Here we are talking about linking to the website of a violent extremist white supremacist organisation that is recruiting new members, encouraging, planning and perpetrating the most serious of crimes, political violence, terrorism, racially motivated attacks etc. I think it is common sense to omit links to websites where extremists recruit and plan attacks. Misplaced Pages is not censored sure, but as always other considerations apply. Here, we are not talking about some offensive memes or porn, we are talking about people planning genocide, mass murder etc. Not linking to an active violent extremist site is just common sense, in my opinion. We don't include url's to the websites of groups like ], ], ], ] etc. At the ] page we have a screenshot of propaganda, rather than link directly to any recruitment/propaganda pages, this approach make a lot more sense, IMO. As per the ] and particularly handling disputes ] which states that "...the fact that a given link is not actually prohibited by this guideline does not automatically mean that it must or should be linked. Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article. Disputes about links can be addressed through the normal dispute-resolution process, particularly at the external links noticeboard...Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them." ] is not a mandate for inclusion. ] (]) 22:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
:Nice list. Looks like I've just found a reason to get a library card for my new city. ] (]) 22:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
* '''No''' - * I support disincluding the URLs for sites of groups/organizations that are primarily engaged in violent behavior and similar, especially when those sites are used to promote violence or recruit for the organizations. Misplaced Pages "isn't censored" but there's no reason to ] hate groups, especially violent/terrorist ones. Stormfront's connections to recruitment for white-supremacist hate groups and coordination of violent/terrorist incidents make any publication of its url dangerous, since ''"registered Stormfront users have been disproportionately responsible for some of the most lethal hate crimes and mass killings since the site was put up in 1995"''. ] (]) 22:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

::Much of the content is readable with Google Books. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

:::Great, I'll have a look and attach some relevant quotes to your refs if you don't mind. <font color="404040">]</font> 23:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

*{{Cite web | title = PublicEye.org - Winter 2008 - Rebranding Fascism | accessdate = 2008-12-31 | url = http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v23n4/rebranding_fascism.html |quote = Additionally, as an identity within the White Nationalist scene, National-Anarchists continue to attract a number of followers in the United States. For example, one of the early collaborators of the Oregon-based magazine Green Anarchy affiliated with their perspective. U.S. National-Anarchists also frequently enter into discussions on Stormfront, the main internet gathering place for White Nationalists. There they defend their racial-separatist and antisemitic credentials to traditional fascists, many of whom look upon Third Position politics with skepticism, if not outright hostility. Apparently hearing White Nationalists promoting Islamist, Communist, and anarchist thinkers is as difficult for some of the Right to digest as it is for the Left.}}
] <sup>]</sup> 14:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

:Interesting stuff; I'd like to include it, though given our lack of coverage of the beliefs of the majority of Stormfront posters it might be giving undue weight towards the ] at the expense of the "traditional fascists". We could stick a brief mention it in the Ideology subsection, and expand on it once we have more to say about the middle-of-the-road Stormfronter? If nothing else, it's useful to indicate a degree of ideological diversity w.r.t. Stromfront. Thanks for the source, Tom. <font color="404040">]</font> 14:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

*Alpha HQ - {{cite news | first = Steven | last = Bonisteel | title = HUD Steps Up Foray Into War Against Online Racism | work = Newsbytes | publisher = Post-Newsweek Business Information, Inc. | date = March 16, 2000, Thursday | accessdate = 2008-12-31 |quote = The Alpha.org Web site is still mothballed, but domain-name hosting for the address is still provided in part by Florida-based Stormfront.org, a Web site operated by a Don Black - a man once jailed for his role in plotting to overthrow the Caribbean island of Dominica to use as a white homeland.}}
**{{Cite book | edition = 1 | publisher = Routledge | isbn = 0415213266 | last = Thomas | first = Douglas | title = Cybercrime: Security and Surveillance in the Information Age | date = 2000-06-08 |quote = In Pennsylvania, state attorneys brought a successful civil action, requesting injunctive and other equitable relief, against Stormfront and Alpha HQ, its service provider. To lessen the possibility that Stormfront might argue that they were being made martyrs of, the action was brought against everybody along the chain, back to the service provider. On their site Stormfront had identified, by name and photographs, a local human relations council (the Reading-Berks Human Relations Council) and one of its staff members, stating that she was a race traitor and should beware.}}
**{{Cite web | title = Court exempts NSI from policing domains - CNET News | accessdate = 2008-12-31 | url = http://news.cnet.com/Court-exempts-NSI-from-policing-domains/2100-1023_3-226017.html | quote = The Webmaster and ISP hosting Alpha.org, however, were not let off the hook. Last February a court in Berks County, Pennsylvania, found that Alpha HQ, company founder Ryan Wilson, and service provider Stormfront had engaged in ethnic intimidation and harassment for their part in hosting the site. }} ] <sup>]</sup> 15:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
:This seems to be paywalled; can you quote us what it says about Stormfront? Thanks, <font color="404040">]</font> 15:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks for the quotes, very helpful. It looks like we could make a subsection on sites Stormfront hosts, covering the MLK site and Alpha HQ. <font color="404040">]</font> 17:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

:::Does anyone object to adding a few lines about Alpha HQ? I was thinking it and the coverage of the Martinlutherking.org site could go in a new subsection in Content. Thoughts? <font color="404040">]</font> 12:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

== about neutrality ==

] has to do with what ] have to say about an organization, not what an organization has to say about itself on its own website. Moreover, ] means the article PoV should follow and echo the independent sources. Lastly, an editor's take on what that website has to say might easily be ]. ] (]) 16:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
:Okay, what's the relevance here? The only place we quote what Stormfront has to say about itself on its own website is in the epigraph containing the mission statement. I completely agree that the article should follow and echo the independent sources, and think this is an important point against the idea that the article should reflect popular opinion. <font color="404040">]</font> 16:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

::Have you heedfully read ]? Either way, please slow down and gather consensus here before making edits to the article. It may take time to hear back from some of the active editors but that's ok. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a news source, so there's no hurry, no emergency. ] (]) 16:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

:::Yeah, I've read WEIGHT; in what ''specific'' instances do you feel the use of sources in this article is unfaithful to it? And what do you mean slow down and gather consensus? I haven't made a major edit to the page since you requested yesterday, and have been discussing the relevant issues here. <font color="404040">]</font> 16:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm here only as a neutral admin so I can't go over each shred of content with you, other than to say, NPoV doesn't mean ''no PoV'', it means a description of the sundry PoVs carried by reliable sources, with the PoVs most often carried by the most reliable sources carrying the most weight in the Misplaced Pages article. Meanwhile I think it would be very helpful if you'd not make any edits to the article at all unless such edits are supported by a consensus of other editors active on this talk page. ] (]) 17:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::Oh, I see, you were trying to clarify to us what the relevant policy is rather than make a complaint that the article does not meet it? That's helpful, sorry for misinterpreting you. <font color="404040">]</font> 17:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::To be fair that should be asked of all the editors to this page, myself and Bali included. I don't think I could support restricted editing by one person and unfettered editing by others. That's just as slanted. ] (]) 17:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::Yes. , this would mean all editors. I brought it up with Skomorokh again because Skomorokh seems to have carried on making small edits without waiting for a clear ]. ] (]) 17:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

::::I don't know about specific instances but I know it's taking an effort for me not to view the piece-meal, one-off, "hope you don't mind" editing as a way to ease in edits without facing too many objections. Not to speak for Gwen (who I respect too much to try and speak for) but that's my personal issue. I hope I'm not accusing, I don't mean to. I mean to point out a set of circumstances that could be misconstrued. ] (]) 17:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll stop the piecemeal edits; they were only to correct my own errors ("quoted a quotation") to remove unsourced content and to try and make a concession to those who feel the article is overly sympathetic to the subject. I'm perfectly happy not to edit the article until there is consensus to do so as long as other editors are too, but it seems {{user|Bali ultimate}} at least might not accept this. <font color="404040">]</font> 17:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

:You can't very well rewrite the article and then insist that no one edit further until there is consensus. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

::I'm not insisting anything; it was Gwen's suggestion that the page not be edited until there was consensus to do so. I'm only indicating my agreement with it. <font color="404040">]</font> 17:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

] --] (]) 00:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
:Got it. However, there are no reliable sources that dispute these descriptions; they are simple fact. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

::My rewrite doesn't deny this. It simply allows for a primary source self-description that is not being allowed (]). Compare to ], which pretty much any non-scientology, non-hollywood source calls a cult (including New Yorker magazine!) or ] which not only sources, but I would argue ] calls "a bunch of crazies". That's my sourcing argument. Then of course is neutrality, which I already soapboxed about. I am not reverting you as you do have a point on consensus, and the last thing I need is my boldness to create free drama, but I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot. It is in the fringes and extremes were our values are more tested, if we fail them there, we are failing them everywhere. Thanks!--] (]) 00:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
:::The content of other articles on en.Misplaced Pages doesn't, in itself, have much sway here: Please have a look at ]. As I said above, ] has to do with what ] have to say about an organization. What ''any'' organization has to say about itself on its own website cannot be taken as ], hence the overwhelming weight given to independent, reliable sources. ] (]) 02:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
::::For lack of a better place, here's my two cents. I've studied carefully the article, some of the sources, and in particular the back and forth here on the talk page. I'm not able to identify where Skomorokh is pursuing a POV, rather I see their desire to create an article which can meet the FAC criteria on its own merits. I do detect a certain POV on the part of other editors who seem determined that the outcome will express only one view, and this extends to a desire to apply certain "obvious" labels.
::::I'm most troubled by the neo-Nazi labelling, I'm unable to find a mainstream source for this (and if I can, it will be here in a microsecond). The label of "white supremacist" seems uncontroversial, I'd add "despicable" and "vile" had I the choice, but I haven't seen the neo-Nazi label applied apart from the ''usual suspects''. From my browsing of the many sources referenced above, in fact, it would appear that the site operators have latterly made an effort to remove this paraphernalia, and in fact, the neo-Nazis now consider that stormfront doesn't go far enough. (I'll try to dig that up on request) At the least then, there should be some historical perspective - leaving no doubt about the white supremacist aspect. In summary, I think that maybe Skomorokh's approach is possibly being misinterpreted by other editors with agendas of their own.
::::FD: I'm a blue-eyed and blond-haired (well, grey and not much left :) male, my father was in the militia, six months away from active service in the ] when WWII ended, my mother was an eight-year-old in ] when the Nazis shipped all the police officers to concentration camps. There's no love there at all, except for love of the objective truth. ] (]) 04:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW this was the change:


*'''Yes''' Exclusion policy is about external links not about the direct link to the subject of an article. At minimum, status quo ante should be observed of including the unhyperlinked web address. Also, as stated on other pages, this is an attempt to override sitewide consensus and should not be a local discussion.And this is not an RfC, which is what it should be as editors beyond those watching this page may have an opinion on the subject. ] (]) 23:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
{{cquote|The '''Stormfront White Nationalist Community''' is a ] ], widely considered to be ],{{ref|a|}} ]{{ref|b|}} and as the Internet's first major ],{{ref|c|}} and the first and most popular ] website.}}
*'''Comment''' ]
:Relevant discussion that shows this straw poll is not proper and that this goes against sitewide consensus. ] (]) 23:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


*'''Yes''' - Addition of an external link to their official website in the infobox is not an endorsement of the group or their activities. If that were actually a thing, it could be argued that this article should not exist in general. Now a couple notes on the examples given of other websites that are not linked. Atomwaffen Division as far as I can tell does not have an official website. If you check the KKK's page it is not linked because there is not one unified site. Same goes for Ulster Defence Association, not even sure they are still around. Again same for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, no official website that I can tell. A more relevant example would be places like ], ], ], ], and ]. Places labeled as extremists that do have official websites and are listed as such. I know this has been said a lot here and at but ] is a thing. We do not remove reliably sourced information because we like or dislike a particular group. No matter how horrible said group is. Also quit repeatedly removing the link while discussion is on going. Since it is long standing material it is assumed to have consensus. You need to obtain consensus to remove it at that point, not to keep it. ] (]) 00:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
(The above was )


*'''No''' we should use our editorial discretion to avoid linking to non-state violent extremist websites. Stormfront is, notably, linked to 100 murders: https://abcnews.go.com/US/stormfront-website-posters-murdered-100-people-watchdog-group/story?id=23365815. We have a responsibility not to publish content that (1) is not encyclopedic and (2) could needlessly facilitate real-world physical harm. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
:. By the way, there's no need to copy-paste changes as text onto a talk page, rather, that's what ] are for (and either way, that crummy syntax is bound to be fixed by someone sooner rather than later). ] (]) 02:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
::This doesn't stand up because (1) - this is encyclopedic because we have an article about it, and readers deserve to be able to assess the site for themselves. (2) we have loads of articles that could facilitate real-world harm from ] to ], but we aren't here to try and prevent people accessing information that might lead to them killing other people.----] 07:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
:::That's another blatant false equivalence. No one here is arguing to delete the Stormfront article. ] (]) 07:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
::::You literally said we have a responsibility not to publish content that "could needlessly facilitate real-world physical harm." Perhaps you meant something else? Your argument against external links appears to be based on the notion that our articles will cause people to follow the links and do bad things, and that we have a responsibility to stop that happening.----] 08:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::I never said any such thing. ] (]) 11:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
::* Providing a URL is not an encyclopedic necessity. We provide URLs as a public service in ''addition to'' our encyclopedic article. When we do it, it's an add-on. It's not an entitlement, and ]. When a website is specifically devoted to violent extremism&mdash;and again, this particular website has been directly linked to a hundred murders&mdash;linking to it is not longer a public service, and therefore we can (and should) decline to link. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Just some information to consider. Between 2012 and 2017 over 100 racially motivated murders were perpetrated by extremists using this site to plan and organise. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/29/stormfront-neo-nazi-hate-site-murder-internet-pulled-offline-web-com-civil-rights-action ] (]) 05:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''No''' seeing as the URL's link to website of extremists. ] (]) 16:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
* An RfC was started at ] that covers this issue. Would likely be a better place for anyone looking to opine on the matter. ] (]) 21:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' This discussion seems to pop up a few times on several different pages. I'm just wondering; do we have a specific definition for what constitutes an "extremist/hate group" if we are to censor links and source material for those groups? - ] (]) 02:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
<s>*'''no''' per ] it's a no brainer ] (]) 20:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)</s>
*'''Yes''', and in my honest opinion, quite obviously yes. This is ''clearly not a matter of endorsement'' -- and to posit is as endorsement would be fundamentally harmful to the very idea of Misplaced Pages. The argument that linking to a website via Misplaced Pages could cause public harm is instantly risible, a claim on a similar tier to 'violent video games cause real-world violence'; the idea of someone becoming a neo-Nazi (let alone a neo-Nazi murderer) solely because they followed an article's link to Stormfront is bizarre, more a moral panic than an argument. There are real discussions to be had about people being radicalized and recruited, and they have nothing to do with Misplaced Pages links. The idea they do indeed serves as an opportunity ''for'' the people radicalizing and recruiting others, considering how powerful the "we're being unduly censored" message is. ] (]) 14:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
::Sadly, that isn't how people work. I have a friend who for years taught public speaking and logic courses at a community college. For several years one of her standard assignments for students was to perform a source analysis of "martinlutherking.org", which was owned by Stormfront, and write a paper on (a) its veracity as a source and (b) whether it would be appropriate to use as a source for an extemporaneous speech or a situation such as ]. She stopped after having to refer too many students to the administration, specifically because of a pattern where white-supremacist-leaning '''students saw the site and became more radicalized''', not only deciding it was a "fantastic" source but using it to harass minorities and engaging in a few instances of threats that required disciplinary action from the college.
::Now granted, she was teaching at a community college that served rural, shitty, KKK-laden regions of Louisiana, a "]" segment of the USA. But the fact remains, this is a very real thing. ] (]) 15:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
:::While I don't mean to downplay the experience here, I don't see how this is a strongly different argument to the same ones that could be made about media violence. You note yourself that this is a matter of people with pre-existing white supremacist sympathies in far-right social milieus, being given the sources directly and in-person by authority figures within that milieu. Similarly, studies on media violence that find it to contribute to real-world violence are performed on people with pre-existing violent tendencies; the supposed effect is inseparable from the state of the person beforehand, and any influence that could be claimed is totally dependent on the testing environment. I am unable to draw a line between the experience of a narrow subculture with a much more direct influence than 'Misplaced Pages sidebar' and the situation here, and I think it does a disservice to the actual matter of "how do we prevent people from being radicalized and reverse radicalization that occurs?" to do so. ] (]) 16:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
::::Media violence is not akin to political radicalization so this a false analogy. The studied case of a person who sees sexualized violence in a film and develops a (serious) condition that persists until the fantasy is realized is uncommon. It is serious but it's not expected to have a mass effect like contagion. Most American media lacks the substance of radicalization snuff it just doesn't tell us to be good guys we have to kill minorities. If we're not part of the solution, then alas. ] (]) 09:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
* '''Yes''': Per Vaticidalprophet's argument. ] (]) 10:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
::Vaticidalprophet makes a superficially persuasive argument but his interpretation of the facts comparing new media with conventional media is out of whack with the current trajectory of research. Conventional media outlets didn't police themselves and I don't know how realistic it is to expect of new media, but I strongly admire all the volunteers on this project who've made an effort to do the right thing. This is the last thing I'm going to say about this. ] (]) 11:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' largely per Vaticidalprophet but also because if we exclude links to groups we disapprove of (for whatever reason) then it becomes clear that we ''do'' endorse all the groups we do link to. Such a situation would mean that we are no longer a neutral encyclopaedia and leaves us unable to defend ourselves against accusations of bias for or against any group/person/organisation/philosophy/etc. regardless of what it is. ] (]) 13:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' I changed by vote based on ]. I was not convinced by the argument Vaticidalprophet makes that only persons with pre-existing violence tendencies are effected, because it has no merit. This radicalization is not "monkey see, monkey do" like cinema. The messages of shame and retribution are advanced to recruit persons for illegitimate (not legal in the US) actions. Many Stormfront readers may be inherently worthless persons, but I voted in consideration of the one case where an impressionable person clicks a link we made easily available on our encyclopedia and is effected by it because they are a good person and because they believe they are doing a good thing. I am not a nihilist, but I believe in a neutral encyclopedia. It is like keeping the child-proof bottles out of reach, but ] is right that is not how a neutral encyclopedia should base decisions. ] (]) 14:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''No''' Fuck Nazis. Seriously. We do get to make basic value judgements, and "Nazis are bad and we should not help them in any way" is a reasonable position. It's not like anybody sufficiently curious won't simply type "stormfront" into their address bar or search engine. NPOV is not a suicide pact. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
::It will vary depending on regions, but according to Google here in the UK, "Stormfront are your local Apple experts, offering Apple products, repairs and accessories." - sure the result we want is further down the page but there will be some jurisdictions in which simply typing stormfront into an address bar or search engine isn't going to work at all. It will impossible to tell whether a search engine provider or ISP is blocking the site if you can't even discover the correct URL to try it out.----] 15:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
::{{reply|Jpgordon}} So basically ]? Or are you under the impression that a link is an endorsement? Because per policy I can assure you it is not. I know this has been brought up a lot here but it is worth repeating the policy on ] {{tq|Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.}} I get it, Nazis are bad. NO ONE is disputing that, nor advocating for them. But that has nothing to do with policy. Please reconsider. ] (]) 21:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Why? My opinion is what it is; if consensus goes against me, it certainly won't be the first time. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 22:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' per ], ], ], ]. Meanwhile I see no policy-based argument for removing the URL. Arguments about making an exception because this organization do illegal things are flawed because lots of organizations are involved in illegal activities, so it would not be an exception at all but would set a precedent for the mass removal of URLs from articles. I get that some people here think this organization is especially bad, but for every organization there will be someone who thinks it is especially bad. ----] 16:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Yes''', unfortunately. I can't see any policy-based reason for excluding the URL, and I can't see how we would choose a standard for which organizations to include links to and which not to. ]'s point is important as well. —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 20:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' It is helpful for users who want to know more about the group. I understand the ethical argument that we should not encourage people to go to Stormfront because they could be recruited. But I think there is a higher value in teaching people about the group and presenting informed opinion about them. If no one knows anything about them except that they are bad, that actually strengthens them. ] (]) 21:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''No''' They are a violence-propagating, racist, sexist, anti-semitic, well generally evil people and their website should not be promoted. If it was a philosophical page dedicated to discussion of issues then yes, but no, they are organizing violence and hatred. Should we have links to ISIS web pages, no, so here we have a Western equivalent. If you want to "research" them, there are plenty of feeders to their pages. WP does not need to help people reach these people. ] (]) 12:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
:I'm not convinced this analogy advances your point: we ''do'' have articles about ] that feature images of the magazines, and articles like ] that include their social media hashtags and lists the websites you can find them on. Despite this having been the case for years, as far as I can tell ISIS has not been doing so well at taking over the world. ''']'''×''']''' 21:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''No''' per (a logical extension of) ]. Just like that essay clarifies that it is {{tq|a misconception that because maintaining a neutral point of view is one of Misplaced Pages's five fundamental principles, administrators would be acting contrary to this if they blocked a racist upon learning of their public self-identification}}, we here also should not be misled into thinking that not linking to Nazis is somehow against ]. It's not a violation of neutrality to not link to Nazis for many reasons, but most directly: NPOV does not mean that we adhere to a single "objective" or "neutral" point of view but that we document all views significantly advocated by reliable sources. Nazism is false, and terrible, and reliable sources universally agree on this point.
: There's really no reason to link to Nazis given this. Per ] official links are provided {{tq|to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself}}. But we don't need to do this for Nazis, because we know by the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources that there is not a snowball's chance in hell that what Stormfront says about itself is worth listening to. ] (]) 16:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. I have left a comment at the ] on the same subject (with broader coverage), from which I will copy here the appropriate excerpt: ''I don't really see why this necessitates a general policy; unless there is some rampant issue of people citing www.hitler-is-great.com as a RS (from perusing people's arguments here, there isn't), does it really matter? Then we have the issue of "endorsement", which I think is greatly overstated. Is anyone really going to read our article on ] and decide that they're great? And if someone is really that disturbed, are we '''really''' going to keep such a person from joining al-Qaeda by refusing to link to their website? I mean, I don't like them any more than you do, and it is true that editing Misplaced Pages is the only weapon we have, but I think the best way to use it is to accurately document all of the bad stuff they do. Speaking of which, our role is to inform and educate people. The number of people researching this for a wholesome and productive purpose vastly outstrips the number of people trying to join their ranks, by orders of magnitude.'' '''Obviously, the people who post on this website are insanely evil''' -- does this mean we should delete material from the article that demonstrates how evil they are? Because it ''makes them look bad''? Why would we go out of our way to make them look good? They're trash. ''']'''×''']''' 21:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
* '''No'''. Just... no. It adds nothing to an understanding of the subject. They are literal Nazis. As {{u|Jpgordon}} says, fuck Nazis. That should not eb even remotely controversial on Misplaced Pages. Nazis: Bad. ''']''' <small>(] - ])</small> 21:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
* '''No'''. Unnecessary, adds nothing, and drives traffic to a violent hate site. ] (]) 14:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Personal opinions supporting or opposing the group should be discounted as they are not inline with maintaining a NPOV or an encyclopedia in general for that matter. Misplaced Pages is not here to promote or censor groups period. Full stop. ] (]) 15:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
:: As I've previously stated, and as ] makes clear, ] does not mean we cannot oppose Nazis, and in fact means we have to oppose Nazis. TBH I hate the name "neutral point of view", because it's specifically not that we have to maintain some sort of single neutral or objective point of view. Instead, we go by views endorsed by reliable sources, and all reliable sources on Nazis are strongly anti-Nazi. ] (]) 15:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
:::You do understand you are using a user essay to say that one of the pillars of Misplaced Pages does not apply right? That is a complete non-starter. No, my comment is firmly rooted in policy, basically editors personal feelings on a subject or group is NOT relevant. Your logic on RS saying Nazis are bad is interesting, I agree with that btw, but again has no bearing on anything here. Again linking the URL is not an endorsement as has been mentioned above. ] (]) 15:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
:::: The pillar does apply, it just says the opposite of what you think it says. It's not that we have a point of view which is neutral. It's that we are neutral with regards to point of view. Then another pillar, verifiability, says that we should only include material which is present in reliable sources. Together these two principles combine to say we are neutral with regards to any point of view that is endorsed by reliable sources, which effectively banishes any endorsement of Nazism (or, for that matter, any other crank ideology) from this encyclopedia.
:::: Is a link to Stormfront an endorsement? Well, ] says that the point of these kinds of external links is {{tq|to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself}}. Which in my view means it doesn't apply to cranks, and Nazis are a particularly terrible form of crank. ] (]) 15:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::Again I think you are misunderstanding what NPOV actually means here. Lets try from another angle. The good old ] which has been brought up a ton here. Here are some key parts that are pertinant to the discussion here. {{TQ|Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive{{mdashb}}even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general ] or ] norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.}} there is also {{TQ|Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is ], text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The ] guideline can help assess appropriate actions to take in the case of content that may be considered offensive.}} The problem with the arguments you and others are making, and the reason I posted this comment to try and make sure people are not making the same mistake you are, is your argument basically boils down to ] and that you think it is objectionable. Those are obviously not policy based in any way and should be discarded as such. Now on the endorsement front, no. Just that is not how external links work. If that were the whole website would be in trouble since we link to objectionable groups all the time. We do that because, you know, it's not actually an endorsement and it is inline with existing policies. Your personal view, while novel and I am sympathetic to, is meaningless here. Heck we link to groups like ], ], and ] for the same reason we should groups like this. ] (]) 18:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, and it's also been pointed out many times that ] and ] are not a suicide pact and neither mandates inclusion. Inclusion/exclusion of any and all content is still based on discussion and editors can and do take into consideration a great many factors and we use discretion when making such decisions all the time. ]] 23:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::That is correct, they are not '''mandates''' for inclusion. Which is why my comments were combating spurious reasons given for exclusion. Now if IDONTLIKEIT is used for a reason for exclusion, as some have given above, then those comments are to be discarded. ] (]) 23:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::Misrepresentating the legitimate comment that "these sites are used by white supremacists to recruit" as "]" is such a dishonest argument it merits no recognition. ] (]) 23:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::You have no clue what you are talking about huh? ] (]) 23:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::Lets try and keep it civil guys. I think when it comes to NAZI's and their ilk it's more than a case of IDONTLIKEIT and is actually a very reasonable objection that can't just be slapped down with NOTCENSORED or IDONTLIKEIT... it's more a case of ]. I think it's fair to say that any reasonable person would reject the vileness of fascism outright, it's not any old objection, it's NAZI's. ]] 00:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::::Yes Nazi's bad, user essays about Nazi's bad. All bad. All of that has nothing to do with should a link be included besides your run of the mill censorship. I gave several examples of extremists groups on the other side with linked sites as well. I think any org that has a site and in doing so does not violate the law should be linked. Regardless of who they are. When editors start deciding who should be censored we have a major problem. Which is the part of the NPOV concerns that Loki was not understanding. ] (]) 00:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I disagree. No one is censoring anything, omitting a url is not censorship, unless one was playing very free and loose with the word. The website is still there unfortunately and can be looked up by anyone who cares to get involved in race based violence, I just don't think we should link to this kind of site, not linking to it is simply not censorship. ]] 00:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
{{od|:::::::::::::}}You are saying we should not link to groups you decide are bad. While I agree they are bad, it is basically the definition of censorship. Both in the real world and in policy. ] (]) 00:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
: Not linking to a url is not censorship. ]] 00:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
::Not linking to a url because of ideological reasons is censorship. You left out that key part. ] (]) 00:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
:::"I can't understand the difference between not liking something for ideological reasons, and reasonably not wanting to link to actual terrorist recruitment websites" is a ] problem, not a valid argument. ] (]) 01:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
::::You have no clue what you are talking about huh? That is twice now, it's becoming a trend at this point. Disappointing. ] (]) 01:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::It's not about ideology, it's about murder and assault, it's about extremist genocidal criminal activity that no reasonable person could or would condone. ]] 01:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::No it really is not about any of those actually. No murder, assault, or genocide will occur by linking a url. It's also not condoning those things by linking either, that is a red herring. ] (]) 01:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::Well, hundreds of murders have been planned on that site, so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. ]] 01:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::Fair enough, I do appreciate the discussion though. I always do with you. Just a last note since I edit conflicted with your last part. None of those have been as a result of a link from Misplaced Pages, nor will they be. ] (]) 01:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, you too. And yes, I don't believe any murderers have found their way to that site via us, and I hope no one ever does find their way there via us. Believe me, I've seen the members section, it's a very sick and disturbed corner of the web - I'm sure we can agree on that. ]] 01:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::Never been there but you and several other people I respect have said as much in the past. I don't doubt you all for a moment on that front. ] (]) 01:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::I wouldn't recommend it. When all is said and done I don't see any encyclopedic value in linking to a site which is essentially a noticeboard for discussing and planning racist violence. ]] 01:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
* '''Strong No''' Could cause harm. ~ ]] 02:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
* '''No''' People who say wikipedia can't censor this are missing the point. There are things that should be indeed censored online - this is one of them. Especially if they promote violence. Just in the same way wikipedia should not give links to official ISIS websites. People who cite NPOV and vote yes are missing the point. ] (]) 19:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== pan-European in lede ==
Franamax said, "I'm most troubled by the neo-Nazi labelling, I'm unable to find a mainstream source for this..." What about the four references in footnote b? I don't understand who are the usual sources you refer to in italics, but here are three:
*RCMP will not pursue charges in CHRC case; Human rights body accused of hacking into Web account - Joseph Brean, National Post, November 21, 2008 Friday - "They were seeking the identity of whoever logged on to the neo-Nazi Web site stormfront.org under the name..."
*Admitted 'Nazi' Fined For Internet Hate Speech; Must Pay $4,500 Total - Don Butler, CanWest News Service, October 27, 2007 Saturday - "Between October, 2003, and May, 2006, Ms. Beaumont, writing under the pseudonym "Jessy Destruction," posted more than 1,000 messages on the Canadian forum of Stormfront. org, an American neo-Nazi Web site."
*How not to handle a genteel racist: Dalhousie Non-debate: White supremacist invited, disinvited, roughed up and in the end, glorified - Joseph Brean, National Post, January 27, 2007 Saturday - "Late last month, the first public notice made its way on to Stormfront.org, an American neo-Nazi Web site, whose moderator encouraged like-minded Nova Scotians to attend."


I moved this based on the cited source (a weak source, imo). Looking for additional sources I couldn't find a second but did not look too hard. An article with this many watchers it may be a previous consensus and did not want to remove it unilaterally. No objections to removal by others, however! ] (]) 05:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Lexis/Nexis says there are 39 more instances of "neo-Nazi" within five words of "Stromfront," but I'm getting tired of this. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
:It does not belong in the lead, without a ton of explanation. What reliable source refers to them as such? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
:Yep - my library subscriptiom is broken right now, so no specific comment. NP/CanWest are the same thing, so all I can ask at the moment is whether your cites were published as general news or under "Comment", "Analysis" or "Opinion" bylines. I agree that it's tiresome, all I need is a smoking gun in the form of a reliable item, perhaps a news item from the ] or ] for Canada, ] or ] for the US, ] globally. Anything that doesn't represent an opinion. Anything. ] (]) 06:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
::Agreed that it doesn't belong in the lead. It was added to the lead in November by an IP editor .
::Aternatively, if anyone cares to, privately email me a link from the stormfront.org website which demonstrates any of neo-Nazism, Holocaust denial, race wars etc. and I will be satisfied with OR. White supremacy is a given, since that is the purpose of the site, crappy as that purpose may be. ] (]) 07:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
::The only source mentions "pan-European white nationalist" in passing. The article it was linked to is about traditional post-War pan-Europeanism which is an anti-American ideology and not what ] or Stormfront are known for. I probably should have just removed it but other editors have already done so.] (]) 17:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Yeah, getting rid of it was a good move. ] (]) 01:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


== Removing link from Infobox ==
Franamax, what is your objection to the four sources that are already listed in foot note b? ] <sup>]</sup> 13:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
:I was asking about the context of the quotes. My subscription is back up now and I've reviewed 30 or so news articles mentioning the site, including the ones you mention above. I find that the much more common descriptor is "white supremacist" and "white pride" but there are sufficient mentions of "neo-Nazi" that I would agree that this characterization exists in the media. I still think there is a difference between neo-Nazis ''posting'' to the site and the site itself ''being'' neo-Nazi, however, sufficient RS exist that call stormfront.org a neo-Nazi website, so I'm fine now :) ] (]) 22:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


As commenters pointed out, ] does not explicitly mandate inclusion of certain material as long as we are in our editorial discretion. Further, ] includes the following: {{tq|Official websites '''may''' be included in '''some infoboxes'''}} {{eA}}. To me, that is a pretty clear go ahead for potentially keeping a link out of Infobox. This is a potential compromise solution that I feel most editors would have supported if it was presented to them as an option in the ]. &ndash;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">]&thinsp;]<sup>]</sup></span> 00:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
== The lead section - what it ought to look like ==


:I don't think so. It's abundantly clear that the requested removal of this link is because certain editors find it objectionable, which violates the NOTCENSORED policy: "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content." ] (]) 02:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding . The lead currently summarises only the History section, and part of the Content section. Per ], "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" and "in a well-constructed article, the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text". In a neutral summary, the entire article is represented, not just the parts a particular editor likes. <font color="404040">]</font> 16:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
:: ]: {{tq|A cornerstone of Misplaced Pages policy is that the project is not censored. Misplaced Pages editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. However, this does not mean that Misplaced Pages should include material simply because it is offensive, nor does it mean that offensive content is exempted from regular inclusion guidelines. Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner. Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. }} ] (]) 16:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
: You're not summarizing what's important, you seem to be relying on primary sources from stormfront for your points and, no, per wp:lede the most important things in the article aren't blacks self-serving spins on his intentions. The most important bits are: What is this site? What does it stand for? And maybe on or two of the most interesting details. Strong oppose. And don't change "American Nazi Party" to national socialist whatsits again, ok?] (]) 16:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Thanks {{u|LokiTheLiar}}. So there you go, if hundreds of murders, Nazi's and ethnic cleansing weren't enough, Loki has now found a solid policy basis of not including the url to this vile site. "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." not linking to a violent hate site does not "cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate. ] is not a mandate for inclusion. There's no grounds to claim the url's inclusion is mandatory. ]] 20:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
::There is not a single instance of using Stormfront as a primary source in this article. for the American Nazi Party claim does not say Black was a member of the American Nazi Party - it says "In 1970, a year later, Black joined the Virginia-based, neo-Nazi National Socialist White People's Party". What are you talking about? <font color="404040">]</font> 17:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
::::] the RFC has already established formal consensus that the URL <u>will</u> be included. That issue is considered resolved, and continuing to argue against consensus may be considered ].</br>If you would like to ''better understand'' Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, if you like to ''better understand'' why the URL is included, I am willing to explain how every sentence of ] actively or passively supports inclusion of the URL. However I hesitate to post that explanation if it may tempt you into continued argument against consensus. ] (]) 17:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
:::I must admit I don't quite understand the difference. Both link to the same article. Unless Skomorokh is trying to argue that they might be different? ] (]) 17:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Agreed. I think it is not only common sense to not include the link to a website linked to racial hatred, recruitment attempts and hundreds of killings, but removing it would not really have an effect on the informativeness or accuracy of the article. Furthermore, I think the logo should also be removed, because it is quite literally the URL to the site. If this is found to not be feasible, I propose cropping the logo image so the top level domain (the .org) is not in the frame. If we remove the URL but still include a logo image with the URL in it, curious people are still gonna be able to type in the URL and visit the site. And seeing as how this is an extremely dangerous website, I would prefer that curiosity not kill any more of these particular cats. ] (]) 19:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
::::As I understand it, the National Socialist White People's Party was renamed the American Nazi Party at some point. It might be inaccurate to say he joined the ANP when the organisation he joined was the NSWPP. With NSWPP we cover ourselves because it's referenced (so any mistake is the source's fault and not ours). Why not just write what the source says? ] redirects to ] anyway, so anyone interested enough to follow up will get the full story. For the record, I know nothing about either organisation beyond what the Misplaced Pages articles say. <font color="404040">]</font> 17:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::Then, to me, this looks like a case of being faithful to the citation fact-for-fact, not word-for-word. What do both of you say to listing the current name of the organization vs. the main WP article on the organization? I'd go with WP article name with WP:EGG tipping the balance for me (all things being equal if that's what it's called on WP then let's keep it that way). ] (]) 17:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::Okay, I've had another read of the ] article and the story looks a little different. It was originally called the ANP and then renamed the NSWPP in 1967, but the rename never stuck in the popular consciousness. So the org Black joined ''was'' what was commonly known as the American Nazi Party. So I'm happy with the current wording. <font color="404040">]</font> 17:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to Bali ultimate for . It's good to know we can come to agreement after talking things through a little. <font color="404040">]</font> 18:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


If we are to include only a single instance of the link I feel it ought to be in an "External links" section in the format , as that is the standard practice and first place most people would look. As to whether we should also include in the link the infobox I have no opinion other than to say I can't see any reason why we shouldn't. However to only have the link in the infobox and not in an EL section is incongruous and not in keeping with ]. ----] 07:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
== ''Mass-mediated terrorism'' ref ==
*It should be removed, it is an exceptionally dangerous site and adds nothing of encyclopedic value. We use editorial discretion all the time. Local consensus to remove, as pointed out by MJL, ] does not mandate inclusion of any material and ] states that official websites '''may''' be included in '''some infoboxes''', not that they must be included regardless of any other consideration. ]] 21:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
::Agreed. I don't buy the "dangerous" argument, but the "fuck Nazis" argument suffices. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
:::Agreed 100%, fuck Nazi's. I say dangerous because the site has been linked to hundreds of murders. ]] 01:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
There's obviously no consensus to remove it either locally or in terms of changing policy, so this discussion is only going to be fruitful if it focuses on where in the article the link(s) should be, not on whether or not there is a link.----] 07:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
:There's clearly significant objections, you can't just write them off and say the link ''must'' be included. ]] 20:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


*What about option D(or was it C?) from the larger RFC? Basically put a bare link in the infobox. Not something to click or the like, just there. ] (]) 14:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding by {{user|Tom harrison}}, the book does discuss Stormfront on page 114, as this link should show:. <font color="404040">]</font> 17:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
::I think that's a perfectly sensible compromise. I'd accept that as a compromise but, for the record, I'm still vehemently opposed to any inclusion. The site is linked to hundreds of murders, it's used to plan ethnic cleansing - I am still a bit shocked that its inclusion has any support. Just a note - we already include the bare url five times, I think that's excessive and could be seen as promotional. ]] 20:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
*Delinking serves no purpose except to hinder, inconvenience, and annoy readers who want to use it. That is not acceptable. ] (]) 17:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
::Hi Alsee, I hear what your saying "Delinking serves no purpose except to hinder, inconvenience, and annoy readers who want to use it". However, I for one have no issue hindering, inconveniencing, and annoying Nazi's (you can't really access anything on the site without joining). We're still including the url, it's a reasonable compromise. I mean if they can operate a computer, copy and paste can't be too much for them. ]] 21:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
:::You appear to be asserting than any reader who chooses to follow the link is a Nazi, and that is your only argument for removing the hyperlink. Additionally you have now gone ahead and removed the hyperlink claiming that a consensus to do so can be found here, but that is evidently not the case.---] 06:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
::::You're right, I apologize to you and Alcee. I felt like there was a general agreement to this compromise, but looking over the debate again, it's clear there was not. I was wrong, sorry for being disruptive. ]] 08:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::Sorry if I worded my edit summary overly harshly. FWIW some time ago I did initially think that delinking might be a useful compromise between editors, but others have convinced me it serves no useful purpose and degrades the article for readers. I think the practice of removing hyperlinks is even less likely to gain consensus than removing URLs completely. -----] 10:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::: {{u|Pontificalibus}} Not at all, you were being reasonable, I can see why that was frustrating. I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong. For the record, I still think it is a profoundly wrong decision to link to this site, but I can see I'm in the minority on this. ]] 22:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
*How many times do we plan to have this same discussion? ] (]) 14:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
::As many times as necessary, I guess. This subject is on the extreme edge of extreme, it's a Nazi site connected to hundreds of horrific murders, it's not an article about puppies or kittens - people are going to want to discuss how and what we present, and that's fair enough. I have seen the members section and it's absolutely terrifying, I can assure you. People are right to have serious concerns about linking to this site and to raise them - I for one would find it troubling if there wasn't a lot of discussion about this content. Thankfully most people are still revolted by Nazism, it's a good sign that we have these discussions, that we take violent extremism seriously. ]] 22:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
:::*It sounds easy to say "as many times as necessary", but that's really part of the question. We've had extensive in the past 3 months. This isn't something that we discussed once 5 years ago. I haven't seen you present anything different than has already been said. At some point, this starts to look like you simply don't like the consensus. ] (]) 13:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
::::I've accepted the consensus, I was responding to your question. ]] 20:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
:We have to bear in mind that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and helps readers as a first stop in any area of research. Someone studying right-wing extremism will find it useful to be able to access the websites of the groups they are studying. Reputable books on right-wing extremism frequently cite primary sources and even include extensive quotes. ] (]) 23:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
::I have studied this very subject at uni, anyone studying right-wing extremism will already be familiar with the site and if they have the wherewithall to study anything above a primary school level then I'm sure they can type a web address, and then to see anything of the site they must become a member...so that's all a moot point. Books about this stuff don't have hyperlinks and when discussing and quoting the content they also give context. I can't really see your point there, helping people access a members only Nazi site doesn't have any real value as leaving off the hyperlink does not even make it hard to access, one has only to type in the URL address. ]] 02:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
:::The article isn't designed for people who already know all about Stormfront. Printed books don't typically have hyperlinks, but they do provide web addresses, which are presumably clickable when read in certain formats. See for example ''Rhetoric, Race, Religion, and the Charleston Shootings'' (Rowan & Littlefield 2019). Of course you can say that the website is www.stormfront.com and ask readers to copy and past the address into a new browser page instead of clicking, but that's inconvenient. Are you saying by the way that omitting a link will not deter potential neo-Nazis from accessing the website since all they have to do is type in the url? ] (]) 03:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
::::I mean the debates over, we are keeping the url, but yes I think it's wrong to direct traffic to this site. Doesn't really matter what I think though, consensus is against removal and I accept that. ]] 20:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


== Is this really written from a neutral point of view? ==
:Huh, so it does. But not here . I wonder why. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


]
::Beats me. I don't think I added those Google Books links (see above section). <font color="404040">]</font> 18:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


Or are they ]s? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign -->
::Yeah, I had a look at the history of the article and it was {{User|D-Notice}} that added the links to Google Books in . Ask them and you need wonder no more :) <font color="404040">]</font> 18:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


:A lot of sweeping generalizations and shock terminologies are thrown around on this article. I think it's important to consider that they are a broad community and that the actions or words of a few should not speak for the entire group. ] (]) 12:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
::Looks like a different edition. Thanks for catching my mistake, ] <sup>]</sup> 00:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
::Go and publish that in a ] and we may be able to use it in the article. --] (]) 13:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


== Reword in Lead ==
:::No problem. <font color="404040">]</font> 12:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


Currently we have this text in the first paragraph:
== ] ==


"The site is primarily focused on propagating white nationalism, antisemitism, islamophobia, anti-Hinduism, anti-feminism, homophobia, transphobia, Holocaust denial, anti-Catholicism, and white supremacy. In addition to its promotion of Holocaust denial, Stormfront has increasingly become active in the propagation of Islamophobia."
Would be an appropriate step for this article, IMO. ''']'''</font> <small>]</small> 00:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
:Aye, the only difficulty would be that it would necessarily fail on criterion five regardless of its merits. <font color="404040">]</font> 05:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


While it propagates all these things, I don't think it's useful to say it is ''primarily'' focused on propagating this list of things. For the sake of clarity it would make more sense to choose one or two or maybe three things it ''primarily'' promotes, and then list the others as things it ''also'' promotes e.g.:
== Tag the article as a warning to readers? ==


"The site is primarily focused on propagating white nationalism, antisemitism and Islamophobia. In addition it also promotes anti-Hinduism, anti-feminism, homophobia, transphobia, Holocaust denial, anti-Catholicism, and white supremacy."
Hello, sorry I haven't had much time to devote to the discussion here in the last day or so, (recovering from over-exuberant welcoming of 2009 and reviewing student papers are unsurprisingly uncomplimentary), but it's good to see no major edits are being made without consensus. One thought that struck me is that our readers probably ought to be warned of the content disputes by means of header tags. At the very least, an {{tl|npov}} tag should be added to reflect the concerns of the above discussions, I think. {{tl|ActiveDiscuss}} might be a helpful addition also. Regards, <font color="404040">]</font> 03:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
:Will add. ''']'''</font> <small>]</small> 04:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


Thoughts? ----] 08:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
== "It is also a Neo-Nazi website" ==


== New info? ==
This sentence is a bit dodgy, and needs to be reworded. I'm copying a response to ] from my talk page: I'm a bit cautious about presenting something as fact that needs more than two citations to assert itself. If it needs more than that, it's really just a widely held viewpoint (and then it becomes ]). ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 03:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
:Just a point: I'd like to point out I'm not saying we can't call it a Neo-Nazi website, just that we can't in its current form. We could say something like "Neo-Nazi sentiment is shared on the website, where the...". But as I said, "It is", and an opinion, is self-contradictive. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 03:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
::The reason it "needs more than two citations" is because for some odd reason people keep denying obvious facts. Are you aware of any ] that say it is ''not'' a neo-Nazi website? Otherwise I'm afraid I'll have to remove the tag. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
:::If it was an obvious fact, you'd need, at the most, two citations. As it stands, I think there are five. Pushing it into opinion territory. Widely held opinion, but an opinion nonetheless. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 03:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
::::If I were to remove three of the citations would your objection then disappear? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::The point I'm trying to make is that it's not as "obvious" as you say it is. Any form of far-right politics is bound to have widely differing definitions, even amongst anti-discrimination scholars and organisations. What is Neo-Nazi to one scholar may not be to another. In the long term, it comes down to interpretation of the movement and Stormfront's objectives. Oh, and the argument that it's a fact that it's Neo-Nazi because there are no sources that prove otherwise is ]. (And to be honest, I think you have a possible conflict of interest on antisemitism topics). ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 03:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::According to whom is it ''not as "obvious" as you say it is''? Please make sure the answer isn't ], but instead, a ]. Also, I have no ], don't make that ] assertion again. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Didn't you read ]? Wonderful article. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 04:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Nice article, but irrelevant in this case. The fact that Stormfront is a neo-Nazi board is supported by positive assertions made by reliable sources that the site is "neo-Nazi" - not just a lack of sources asserting it is not. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::It's not irrelevant, as you're saying something is true because nothing says it's false. That is the dictionary definition of the negative proof fallacy. I'm currently running two conversations on this: one with Gwen on my talk, and one with you here. From the former, I noted that fascism, and all its derivatives, are so widely defined that it's impossible to get objectivity out of them. "Neo-Nazi" could be a propaganda phrase, or it could be a reasonable assertion based on research. But there's simply no way to tell. That's why we need to get so many sources to agree. And that's why it's ultimately an opinion—a widely and near-universally held one—, but still an opinion nonetheless. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 04:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
All the Neo-Nazi references cited identify ''Stormfront'' as a Neo-Nazi ''website''. Not that it is notable for the Neo-Nazi views of its members, not that Neo-Nazi sentiment is shared there. Why don't we cut the editorializing and stick to the verifiable information on the topic? <font color="404040">]</font> 04:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
:I should say, as a point of order I'm not trying to remove the term "neo-Nazi". I'm trying to find a way where we can avoid the "It is"+opinion construction. "The website espouses Neo-Nazi beliefs" would be fine. "The website contains Neo-Nazi beliefs" would be fine. But I fear the current construction may get challenged for NPOV by not just me, but other people. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 04:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


In light of stormfront's leaked code of conduct, surely there are some additions to be made here, especially to the ideology section? ] (]) 10:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
:"widely described as a neo-Nazi website"? "often described as a neo-Nazi website"? There seems no doubt at all that some of the contributors hold a neo-Nazi viewpoint. The site controller may or may not intend it to be neo-Nazi (my definition being the display of Nazi imagery and espousal of specific Nazi views, ''a la'' "kill the Jews"). There is a difference between white-supremacist and neo-Nazi, obscure though it may seem. Nazis killed anyone who disagreed, not just the "racially inferior". Nevertheless, there are multiple references to the site/organization being neo-Nazi, to which I could add at least one more RS. Perhaps the multiplicity of sources in support are due to Skomorokh's and my questioning of the verifiable basis above. ] (]) 04:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:20, 24 June 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stormfront (website) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Stormfront. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Stormfront at the Reference desk.
Former good articleStormfront (website) was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 18, 2005Articles for deletionNo consensus
September 19, 2006Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
September 22, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
August 5, 2008Good article nomineeListed
January 27, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconWebsites: Computing
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconDiscrimination Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternet culture Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 2020-06-15


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Do not feed the trollDo not feed the trolls!
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

  • ] The anchor (#Nazi symbol) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 October 2018 and 12 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Avivaw23. Peer reviewers: Chloehyman.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Offline status

As of April 13th, 2023 it appears their website is currently down, possibly server suspended service with a 403 HTTP status code: "The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request". According to sitechecker.pro, this might mean their domain has expired. --Lion2Ya (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Link

Should we really be directly linking to a white supremacist neo-Nazi website? Surely we should not be giving them any more traffic?

Misplaced Pages is not censored. To have an article about a website without linking to that site would be absurd.----Pontificalibus 07:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Why not? We link to the SPLC. 47.137.179.4 (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Redundant/excessive use of descriptors

The first sentence of the article describes Stormfront as "a white nationalist, white supremacist, antisemitic, Holocaust denial, and Neo-Nazi Internet forum," which, while 100% accurate, uses way too many adjectives. Neo-nazis, by definition, are white nationalist, white supremacist, antisemitic Holocaust deniers, so including all those extra descriptors is just redundant. I think it would be better if "white nationalist, white supremacist, antisemitic, Holocaust denial, and" was removed so the first sentence just said "Stormfront is a Neo-nazi Internet forum, and the Web's first major racial hate site." Cc330162 (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

  • I am not unsympathetic to the idea of economy, but the problem here is that many of these descriptors (in this and many other articles) have been fought over pretty hard. By the way, that "ad hominem" charge in your edit summary, that piqued my attention. I actually don't have a very strong opinion here, but let's wait and see what other say. GorillaWarfare, this is probably the kind of article you've dealt with before. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
    Drmies, good shout - GorillaWarfare has a deft touch with these things. Guy (help! - typo?) 01:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Cc330162, I have nothing against calling them neo-Nazi and then describing their numerous abhorrent opinions as narrative. Do you have a suggested change? Guy (help! - typo?) 01:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
JzG, As I said before, I think the first sentence should be changed from "Stormfront is a white nationalist, white supremacist, antisemitic, Holocaust denial, and Neo-Nazi Internet forum, and the Web's first major racial hate site." to "Stormfront is a Neo-nazi Internet forum, and the Web's first major racial hate site." Including white nationalist, white supremacist, antisemitic, and Holocaust denial in the sentence is redundant, especially since it already says that on the sidebar under "Type of site." Stormfront being an explicitly Neo-nazi forum implies that it is white nationalist, white supremacist, antisemitic, and Holocaust denialist, so I think removing those extra descriptors from the first sentence and simply calling it a Neo-nazi forum would be better because it would take up less space on the article, it would adequately explain what kind of website it is while being concise, and the sidebar already serves the purpose of going into more detail as to what type of website it is. Cc330162 (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the current sentence is too verbose, but I think trimming it just to "neo-Nazi" might be too much. While you are generally correct that neo-Nazi encompasses the other descriptors, they are fairly noteworthy traits of the site. What about "a white supremacist, antisemitic, and Neo-Nazi Internet forum"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
If Misplaced Pages's article on Neo-Nazis says that they have all the descriptors, than surely calling Stormfront neo-Nazi would not be depriving anyone of information. 47.137.178.203 (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Suggestion - Perhaps rephrase to read "Stormfront is a white supremacist and Neo-Nazi Internet forum. The site was the Web's first major racial hate site, primarily promoting white nationalism, antisemitism, Holocaust denial, misogyny, homophobia and Islamophobia." or some variation thereof. Bacondrum (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Neo-nazi is a self-described ideology. You can be all of those things without being a neo-nazi. Asserting that people with such beliefs are neo-nazis is politically biased. Snakestraws (talk) 08:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Snakestraws, society is biased against Nazis. We settled this in the 20th Century. There was a war and everything. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

URL

In conjunction with my closure of a related RFC, I am closing this one as Yes.

Most of us do not like Nazis. However, in determining consensus, points weighted in policy have to be considered over points weighted in other factors.

WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:ELOFFICIAL have general acceptance among the community and a local consensus can not normally overrule that.

Despite this, I see very little discussion has been had at this venue (the other RFC mentioned this in passing) about the location and format of a potential link. See my follow-up post for more information about possible next steps there.

Regards, (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐ 00:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Should we link to or display the url the Stormfront (website)?

  • (A) - No
  • (B) - YES

Bacondrum (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

  • No - As stated previously, I understand that Misplaced Pages is not censored, but we can also apply common sense on a case by case basis. Here we are talking about linking to the website of a violent extremist white supremacist organisation that is recruiting new members, encouraging, planning and perpetrating the most serious of crimes, political violence, terrorism, racially motivated attacks etc. I think it is common sense to omit links to websites where extremists recruit and plan attacks. Misplaced Pages is not censored sure, but as always other considerations apply. Here, we are not talking about some offensive memes or porn, we are talking about people planning genocide, mass murder etc. Not linking to an active violent extremist site is just common sense, in my opinion. We don't include url's to the websites of groups like Atomwaffen Division, Ku Klux Klan, Ulster Defence Association, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant etc. At the Continuity Irish Republican Army page we have a screenshot of propaganda, rather than link directly to any recruitment/propaganda pages, this approach make a lot more sense, IMO. As per the external links guidelines and particularly handling disputes WP:ELBURDEN which states that "...the fact that a given link is not actually prohibited by this guideline does not automatically mean that it must or should be linked. Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article. Disputes about links can be addressed through the normal dispute-resolution process, particularly at the external links noticeboard...Disputed links should normally be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them." WP:NOTCENSORED is not a mandate for inclusion. Bacondrum (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No - * I support disincluding the URLs for sites of groups/organizations that are primarily engaged in violent behavior and similar, especially when those sites are used to promote violence or recruit for the organizations. Misplaced Pages "isn't censored" but there's no reason to WP:PROMO hate groups, especially violent/terrorist ones. Stormfront's connections to recruitment for white-supremacist hate groups and coordination of violent/terrorist incidents make any publication of its url dangerous, since "registered Stormfront users have been disproportionately responsible for some of the most lethal hate crimes and mass killings since the site was put up in 1995". IHateAccounts (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes Exclusion policy is about external links not about the direct link to the subject of an article. At minimum, status quo ante should be observed of including the unhyperlinked web address. Also, as stated on other pages, this is an attempt to override sitewide consensus and should not be a local discussion.And this is not an RfC, which is what it should be as editors beyond those watching this page may have an opinion on the subject. Slywriter (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Extremist_groups_and_their_URL's
Relevant discussion that shows this straw poll is not proper and that this goes against sitewide consensus. Slywriter (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes - Addition of an external link to their official website in the infobox is not an endorsement of the group or their activities. If that were actually a thing, it could be argued that this article should not exist in general. Now a couple notes on the examples given of other websites that are not linked. Atomwaffen Division as far as I can tell does not have an official website. If you check the KKK's page it is not linked because there is not one unified site. Same goes for Ulster Defence Association, not even sure they are still around. Again same for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, no official website that I can tell. A more relevant example would be places like Westboro Baptist Church, 8chan, 4chan, Charlie Hebdo, and Stormfront (website). Places labeled as extremists that do have official websites and are listed as such. I know this has been said a lot here and at Village pump but WP:NOTCENSORED is a thing. We do not remove reliably sourced information because we like or dislike a particular group. No matter how horrible said group is. Also quit repeatedly removing the link while discussion is on going. Since it is long standing material it is assumed to have consensus. You need to obtain consensus to remove it at that point, not to keep it. PackMecEng (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
This doesn't stand up because (1) - this is encyclopedic because we have an article about it, and readers deserve to be able to assess the site for themselves. (2) we have loads of articles that could facilitate real-world harm from arsenic to United States Marine Corps, but we aren't here to try and prevent people accessing information that might lead to them killing other people.----Pontificalibus 07:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
That's another blatant false equivalence. No one here is arguing to delete the Stormfront article. Bacondrum (talk) 07:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
You literally said we have a responsibility not to publish content that "could needlessly facilitate real-world physical harm." Perhaps you meant something else? Your argument against external links appears to be based on the notion that our articles will cause people to follow the links and do bad things, and that we have a responsibility to stop that happening.----Pontificalibus 08:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I never said any such thing. Bacondrum (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Providing a URL is not an encyclopedic necessity. We provide URLs as a public service in addition to our encyclopedic article. When we do it, it's an add-on. It's not an entitlement, and we're not a web host or a directory. When a website is specifically devoted to violent extremism—and again, this particular website has been directly linked to a hundred murders—linking to it is not longer a public service, and therefore we can (and should) decline to link. Neutrality 20:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

*no per Neutrality it's a no brainer Spudlace (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes, and in my honest opinion, quite obviously yes. This is clearly not a matter of endorsement -- and to posit is as endorsement would be fundamentally harmful to the very idea of Misplaced Pages. The argument that linking to a website via Misplaced Pages could cause public harm is instantly risible, a claim on a similar tier to 'violent video games cause real-world violence'; the idea of someone becoming a neo-Nazi (let alone a neo-Nazi murderer) solely because they followed an article's link to Stormfront is bizarre, more a moral panic than an argument. There are real discussions to be had about people being radicalized and recruited, and they have nothing to do with Misplaced Pages links. The idea they do indeed serves as an opportunity for the people radicalizing and recruiting others, considering how powerful the "we're being unduly censored" message is. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Sadly, that isn't how people work. I have a friend who for years taught public speaking and logic courses at a community college. For several years one of her standard assignments for students was to perform a source analysis of "martinlutherking.org", which was owned by Stormfront, and write a paper on (a) its veracity as a source and (b) whether it would be appropriate to use as a source for an extemporaneous speech or a situation such as forensic debate. She stopped after having to refer too many students to the administration, specifically because of a pattern where white-supremacist-leaning students saw the site and became more radicalized, not only deciding it was a "fantastic" source but using it to harass minorities and engaging in a few instances of threats that required disciplinary action from the college.
Now granted, she was teaching at a community college that served rural, shitty, KKK-laden regions of Louisiana, a "sundown town" segment of the USA. But the fact remains, this is a very real thing. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
While I don't mean to downplay the experience here, I don't see how this is a strongly different argument to the same ones that could be made about media violence. You note yourself that this is a matter of people with pre-existing white supremacist sympathies in far-right social milieus, being given the sources directly and in-person by authority figures within that milieu. Similarly, studies on media violence that find it to contribute to real-world violence are performed on people with pre-existing violent tendencies; the supposed effect is inseparable from the state of the person beforehand, and any influence that could be claimed is totally dependent on the testing environment. I am unable to draw a line between the experience of a narrow subculture with a much more direct influence than 'Misplaced Pages sidebar' and the situation here, and I think it does a disservice to the actual matter of "how do we prevent people from being radicalized and reverse radicalization that occurs?" to do so. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Media violence is not akin to political radicalization so this a false analogy. The studied case of a person who sees sexualized violence in a film and develops a (serious) condition that persists until the fantasy is realized is uncommon. It is serious but it's not expected to have a mass effect like contagion. Most American media lacks the substance of radicalization snuff it just doesn't tell us to be good guys we have to kill minorities. If we're not part of the solution, then alas. Spudlace (talk) 09:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Vaticidalprophet makes a superficially persuasive argument but his interpretation of the facts comparing new media with conventional media is out of whack with the current trajectory of research. Conventional media outlets didn't police themselves and I don't know how realistic it is to expect of new media, but I strongly admire all the volunteers on this project who've made an effort to do the right thing. This is the last thing I'm going to say about this. Spudlace (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes largely per Vaticidalprophet but also because if we exclude links to groups we disapprove of (for whatever reason) then it becomes clear that we do endorse all the groups we do link to. Such a situation would mean that we are no longer a neutral encyclopaedia and leaves us unable to defend ourselves against accusations of bias for or against any group/person/organisation/philosophy/etc. regardless of what it is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes I changed by vote based on Thryduulf. I was not convinced by the argument Vaticidalprophet makes that only persons with pre-existing violence tendencies are effected, because it has no merit. This radicalization is not "monkey see, monkey do" like cinema. The messages of shame and retribution are advanced to recruit persons for illegitimate (not legal in the US) actions. Many Stormfront readers may be inherently worthless persons, but I voted in consideration of the one case where an impressionable person clicks a link we made easily available on our encyclopedia and is effected by it because they are a good person and because they believe they are doing a good thing. I am not a nihilist, but I believe in a neutral encyclopedia. It is like keeping the child-proof bottles out of reach, but Thryduulf is right that is not how a neutral encyclopedia should base decisions. Spudlace (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No Fuck Nazis. Seriously. We do get to make basic value judgements, and "Nazis are bad and we should not help them in any way" is a reasonable position. It's not like anybody sufficiently curious won't simply type "stormfront" into their address bar or search engine. NPOV is not a suicide pact. --jpgordon 15:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
It will vary depending on regions, but according to Google here in the UK, "Stormfront are your local Apple experts, offering Apple products, repairs and accessories." - sure the result we want is further down the page but there will be some jurisdictions in which simply typing stormfront into an address bar or search engine isn't going to work at all. It will impossible to tell whether a search engine provider or ISP is blocking the site if you can't even discover the correct URL to try it out.----Pontificalibus 15:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Jpgordon: So basically WP:RGW? Or are you under the impression that a link is an endorsement? Because per policy I can assure you it is not. I know this has been brought up a lot here but it is worth repeating the policy on WP:NOTCENSORED Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. I get it, Nazis are bad. NO ONE is disputing that, nor advocating for them. But that has nothing to do with policy. Please reconsider. PackMecEng (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Why? My opinion is what it is; if consensus goes against me, it certainly won't be the first time. --jpgordon 22:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes per WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:ELOFFICIAL, WP:CENSORED. Meanwhile I see no policy-based argument for removing the URL. Arguments about making an exception because this organization do illegal things are flawed because lots of organizations are involved in illegal activities, so it would not be an exception at all but would set a precedent for the mass removal of URLs from articles. I get that some people here think this organization is especially bad, but for every organization there will be someone who thinks it is especially bad. ----Pontificalibus 16:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, unfortunately. I can't see any policy-based reason for excluding the URL, and I can't see how we would choose a standard for which organizations to include links to and which not to. User:Thryduulf's point is important as well. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes It is helpful for users who want to know more about the group. I understand the ethical argument that we should not encourage people to go to Stormfront because they could be recruited. But I think there is a higher value in teaching people about the group and presenting informed opinion about them. If no one knows anything about them except that they are bad, that actually strengthens them. TFD (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No They are a violence-propagating, racist, sexist, anti-semitic, well generally evil people and their website should not be promoted. If it was a philosophical page dedicated to discussion of issues then yes, but no, they are organizing violence and hatred. Should we have links to ISIS web pages, no, so here we have a Western equivalent. If you want to "research" them, there are plenty of feeders to their pages. WP does not need to help people reach these people. Brunswicknic (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not convinced this analogy advances your point: we do have articles about ISIS propaganda magazines that feature images of the magazines, and articles like Use of social media by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant that include their social media hashtags and lists the websites you can find them on. Despite this having been the case for years, as far as I can tell ISIS has not been doing so well at taking over the world. jp×g 21:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No per (a logical extension of) WP:NONAZIS. Just like that essay clarifies that it is a misconception that because maintaining a neutral point of view is one of Misplaced Pages's five fundamental principles, administrators would be acting contrary to this if they blocked a racist upon learning of their public self-identification, we here also should not be misled into thinking that not linking to Nazis is somehow against WP:NPOV. It's not a violation of neutrality to not link to Nazis for many reasons, but most directly: NPOV does not mean that we adhere to a single "objective" or "neutral" point of view but that we document all views significantly advocated by reliable sources. Nazism is false, and terrible, and reliable sources universally agree on this point.
There's really no reason to link to Nazis given this. Per WP:ELOFFICIAL official links are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. But we don't need to do this for Nazis, because we know by the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources that there is not a snowball's chance in hell that what Stormfront says about itself is worth listening to. Loki (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. I have left a comment at the VP RfC on the same subject (with broader coverage), from which I will copy here the appropriate excerpt: I don't really see why this necessitates a general policy; unless there is some rampant issue of people citing www.hitler-is-great.com as a RS (from perusing people's arguments here, there isn't), does it really matter? Then we have the issue of "endorsement", which I think is greatly overstated. Is anyone really going to read our article on al-Qaeda and decide that they're great? And if someone is really that disturbed, are we really going to keep such a person from joining al-Qaeda by refusing to link to their website? I mean, I don't like them any more than you do, and it is true that editing Misplaced Pages is the only weapon we have, but I think the best way to use it is to accurately document all of the bad stuff they do. Speaking of which, our role is to inform and educate people. The number of people researching this for a wholesome and productive purpose vastly outstrips the number of people trying to join their ranks, by orders of magnitude. Obviously, the people who post on this website are insanely evil -- does this mean we should delete material from the article that demonstrates how evil they are? Because it makes them look bad? Why would we go out of our way to make them look good? They're trash. jp×g 21:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No. Just... no. It adds nothing to an understanding of the subject. They are literal Nazis. As Jpgordon says, fuck Nazis. That should not eb even remotely controversial on Misplaced Pages. Nazis: Bad. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No. Unnecessary, adds nothing, and drives traffic to a violent hate site. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Personal opinions supporting or opposing the group should be discounted as they are not inline with maintaining a NPOV or an encyclopedia in general for that matter. Misplaced Pages is not here to promote or censor groups period. Full stop. PackMecEng (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
As I've previously stated, and as WP:NONAZIS makes clear, WP:NPOV does not mean we cannot oppose Nazis, and in fact means we have to oppose Nazis. TBH I hate the name "neutral point of view", because it's specifically not that we have to maintain some sort of single neutral or objective point of view. Instead, we go by views endorsed by reliable sources, and all reliable sources on Nazis are strongly anti-Nazi. Loki (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
You do understand you are using a user essay to say that one of the pillars of Misplaced Pages does not apply right? That is a complete non-starter. No, my comment is firmly rooted in policy, basically editors personal feelings on a subject or group is NOT relevant. Your logic on RS saying Nazis are bad is interesting, I agree with that btw, but again has no bearing on anything here. Again linking the URL is not an endorsement as has been mentioned above. PackMecEng (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
The pillar does apply, it just says the opposite of what you think it says. It's not that we have a point of view which is neutral. It's that we are neutral with regards to point of view. Then another pillar, verifiability, says that we should only include material which is present in reliable sources. Together these two principles combine to say we are neutral with regards to any point of view that is endorsed by reliable sources, which effectively banishes any endorsement of Nazism (or, for that matter, any other crank ideology) from this encyclopedia.
Is a link to Stormfront an endorsement? Well, our own guideline on external links to the official website of the topic of the article says that the point of these kinds of external links is to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. Which in my view means it doesn't apply to cranks, and Nazis are a particularly terrible form of crank. Loki (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Again I think you are misunderstanding what NPOV actually means here. Lets try from another angle. The good old WP:NOTCENSORED which has been brought up a ton here. Here are some key parts that are pertinant to the discussion here. Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. there is also Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The Misplaced Pages:Offensive material guideline can help assess appropriate actions to take in the case of content that may be considered offensive. The problem with the arguments you and others are making, and the reason I posted this comment to try and make sure people are not making the same mistake you are, is your argument basically boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and that you think it is objectionable. Those are obviously not policy based in any way and should be discarded as such. Now on the endorsement front, no. Just that is not how external links work. If that were the whole website would be in trouble since we link to objectionable groups all the time. We do that because, you know, it's not actually an endorsement and it is inline with existing policies. Your personal view, while novel and I am sympathetic to, is meaningless here. Heck we link to groups like Rose City Antifa, Torch Network, and BAMN for the same reason we should groups like this. PackMecEng (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and it's also been pointed out many times that WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTCENSORED are not a suicide pact and neither mandates inclusion. Inclusion/exclusion of any and all content is still based on discussion and editors can and do take into consideration a great many factors and we use discretion when making such decisions all the time. Bacondrum 23:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
That is correct, they are not mandates for inclusion. Which is why my comments were combating spurious reasons given for exclusion. Now if IDONTLIKEIT is used for a reason for exclusion, as some have given above, then those comments are to be discarded. PackMecEng (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Misrepresentating the legitimate comment that "these sites are used by white supremacists to recruit" as "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" is such a dishonest argument it merits no recognition. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
You have no clue what you are talking about huh? PackMecEng (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Lets try and keep it civil guys. I think when it comes to NAZI's and their ilk it's more than a case of IDONTLIKEIT and is actually a very reasonable objection that can't just be slapped down with NOTCENSORED or IDONTLIKEIT... it's more a case of WP:NONAZIS. I think it's fair to say that any reasonable person would reject the vileness of fascism outright, it's not any old objection, it's NAZI's. Bacondrum 00:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes Nazi's bad, user essays about Nazi's bad. All bad. All of that has nothing to do with should a link be included besides your run of the mill censorship. I gave several examples of extremists groups on the other side with linked sites as well. I think any org that has a site and in doing so does not violate the law should be linked. Regardless of who they are. When editors start deciding who should be censored we have a major problem. Which is the part of the NPOV concerns that Loki was not understanding. PackMecEng (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. No one is censoring anything, omitting a url is not censorship, unless one was playing very free and loose with the word. The website is still there unfortunately and can be looked up by anyone who cares to get involved in race based violence, I just don't think we should link to this kind of site, not linking to it is simply not censorship. Bacondrum 00:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
You are saying we should not link to groups you decide are bad. While I agree they are bad, it is basically the definition of censorship. Both in the real world and in policy. PackMecEng (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Not linking to a url is not censorship. Bacondrum 00:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Not linking to a url because of ideological reasons is censorship. You left out that key part. PackMecEng (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
"I can't understand the difference between not liking something for ideological reasons, and reasonably not wanting to link to actual terrorist recruitment websites" is a WP:CIR problem, not a valid argument. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
You have no clue what you are talking about huh? That is twice now, it's becoming a trend at this point. Disappointing. PackMecEng (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
It's not about ideology, it's about murder and assault, it's about extremist genocidal criminal activity that no reasonable person could or would condone. Bacondrum 01:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
No it really is not about any of those actually. No murder, assault, or genocide will occur by linking a url. It's also not condoning those things by linking either, that is a red herring. PackMecEng (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, hundreds of murders have been planned on that site, so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Bacondrum 01:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough, I do appreciate the discussion though. I always do with you. Just a last note since I edit conflicted with your last part. None of those have been as a result of a link from Misplaced Pages, nor will they be. PackMecEng (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you too. And yes, I don't believe any murderers have found their way to that site via us, and I hope no one ever does find their way there via us. Believe me, I've seen the members section, it's a very sick and disturbed corner of the web - I'm sure we can agree on that. Bacondrum 01:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Never been there but you and several other people I respect have said as much in the past. I don't doubt you all for a moment on that front. PackMecEng (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't recommend it. When all is said and done I don't see any encyclopedic value in linking to a site which is essentially a noticeboard for discussing and planning racist violence. Bacondrum 01:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong No Could cause harm. ~ HAL333 02:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No People who say wikipedia can't censor this are missing the point. There are things that should be indeed censored online - this is one of them. Especially if they promote violence. Just in the same way wikipedia should not give links to official ISIS websites. People who cite NPOV and vote yes are missing the point. WatABR (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

pan-European in lede

I moved this based on the cited source (a weak source, imo). Looking for additional sources I couldn't find a second but did not look too hard. An article with this many watchers it may be a previous consensus and did not want to remove it unilaterally. No objections to removal by others, however! Spudlace (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It does not belong in the lead, without a ton of explanation. What reliable source refers to them as such? --jpgordon 15:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed that it doesn't belong in the lead. It was added to the lead in November by an IP editor .
The only source mentions "pan-European white nationalist" in passing. The article it was linked to is about traditional post-War pan-Europeanism which is an anti-American ideology and not what Don Black or Stormfront are known for. I probably should have just removed it but other editors have already done so.Spudlace (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, getting rid of it was a good move. Bacondrum (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Removing link from Infobox

As commenters pointed out, WP:NOTCENSORED does not explicitly mandate inclusion of certain material as long as we are in our editorial discretion. Further, WP:ELOFFICIAL includes the following: Official websites may be included in some infoboxes . To me, that is a pretty clear go ahead for potentially keeping a link out of Infobox. This is a potential compromise solution that I feel most editors would have supported if it was presented to them as an option in the above RFC. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 00:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's abundantly clear that the requested removal of this link is because certain editors find it objectionable, which violates the NOTCENSORED policy: "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content." 73.159.229.5 (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:GRATUITOUS: A cornerstone of Misplaced Pages policy is that the project is not censored. Misplaced Pages editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. However, this does not mean that Misplaced Pages should include material simply because it is offensive, nor does it mean that offensive content is exempted from regular inclusion guidelines. Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner. Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Loki (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks LokiTheLiar. So there you go, if hundreds of murders, Nazi's and ethnic cleansing weren't enough, Loki has now found a solid policy basis of not including the url to this vile site. "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." not linking to a violent hate site does not "cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate. WP:NOTCENSORED is not a mandate for inclusion. There's no grounds to claim the url's inclusion is mandatory. Bacondrum 20:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Bacondrum the RFC has already established formal consensus that the URL will be included. That issue is considered resolved, and continuing to argue against consensus may be considered disruptive.
If you would like to better understand Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, if you like to better understand why the URL is included, I am willing to explain how every sentence of WP:GRATUITOUS actively or passively supports inclusion of the URL. However I hesitate to post that explanation if it may tempt you into continued argument against consensus. Alsee (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. I think it is not only common sense to not include the link to a website linked to racial hatred, recruitment attempts and hundreds of killings, but removing it would not really have an effect on the informativeness or accuracy of the article. Furthermore, I think the logo should also be removed, because it is quite literally the URL to the site. If this is found to not be feasible, I propose cropping the logo image so the top level domain (the .org) is not in the frame. If we remove the URL but still include a logo image with the URL in it, curious people are still gonna be able to type in the URL and visit the site. And seeing as how this is an extremely dangerous website, I would prefer that curiosity not kill any more of these particular cats. 2A05:4F46:310:5C00:A75E:19C2:DBC9:5A5F (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

If we are to include only a single instance of the link I feel it ought to be in an "External links" section in the format Official website, as that is the standard practice and first place most people would look. As to whether we should also include in the link the infobox I have no opinion other than to say I can't see any reason why we shouldn't. However to only have the link in the infobox and not in an EL section is incongruous and not in keeping with WP:ELCITE. ----Pontificalibus 07:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

  • It should be removed, it is an exceptionally dangerous site and adds nothing of encyclopedic value. We use editorial discretion all the time. Local consensus to remove, as pointed out by MJL, WP:NOTCENSORED does not mandate inclusion of any material and WP:ELOFFICIAL states that official websites may be included in some infoboxes, not that they must be included regardless of any other consideration. Bacondrum 21:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't buy the "dangerous" argument, but the "fuck Nazis" argument suffices. --jpgordon 00:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Agreed 100%, fuck Nazi's. I say dangerous because the site has been linked to hundreds of murders. Bacondrum 01:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

There's obviously no consensus to remove it either locally or in terms of changing policy, so this discussion is only going to be fruitful if it focuses on where in the article the link(s) should be, not on whether or not there is a link.----Pontificalibus 07:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

There's clearly significant objections, you can't just write them off and say the link must be included. Bacondrum 20:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I think that's a perfectly sensible compromise. I'd accept that as a compromise but, for the record, I'm still vehemently opposed to any inclusion. The site is linked to hundreds of murders, it's used to plan ethnic cleansing - I am still a bit shocked that its inclusion has any support. Just a note - we already include the bare url five times, I think that's excessive and could be seen as promotional. Bacondrum 20:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Alsee, I hear what your saying "Delinking serves no purpose except to hinder, inconvenience, and annoy readers who want to use it". However, I for one have no issue hindering, inconveniencing, and annoying Nazi's (you can't really access anything on the site without joining). We're still including the url, it's a reasonable compromise. I mean if they can operate a computer, copy and paste can't be too much for them. Bacondrum 21:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
You appear to be asserting than any reader who chooses to follow the link is a Nazi, and that is your only argument for removing the hyperlink. Additionally you have now gone ahead and removed the hyperlink claiming that a consensus to do so can be found here, but that is evidently not the case.---Pontificalibus 06:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
You're right, I apologize to you and Alcee. I felt like there was a general agreement to this compromise, but looking over the debate again, it's clear there was not. I was wrong, sorry for being disruptive. Bacondrum 08:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry if I worded my edit summary overly harshly. FWIW some time ago I did initially think that delinking might be a useful compromise between editors, but others have convinced me it serves no useful purpose and degrades the article for readers. I think the practice of removing hyperlinks is even less likely to gain consensus than removing URLs completely. -----Pontificalibus 10:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Pontificalibus Not at all, you were being reasonable, I can see why that was frustrating. I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong. For the record, I still think it is a profoundly wrong decision to link to this site, but I can see I'm in the minority on this. Bacondrum 22:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
As many times as necessary, I guess. This subject is on the extreme edge of extreme, it's a Nazi site connected to hundreds of horrific murders, it's not an article about puppies or kittens - people are going to want to discuss how and what we present, and that's fair enough. I have seen the members section and it's absolutely terrifying, I can assure you. People are right to have serious concerns about linking to this site and to raise them - I for one would find it troubling if there wasn't a lot of discussion about this content. Thankfully most people are still revolted by Nazism, it's a good sign that we have these discussions, that we take violent extremism seriously. Bacondrum 22:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • It sounds easy to say "as many times as necessary", but that's really part of the question. We've had extensive in the past 3 months. This isn't something that we discussed once 5 years ago. I haven't seen you present anything different than has already been said. At some point, this starts to look like you simply don't like the consensus. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I've accepted the consensus, I was responding to your question. Bacondrum 20:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
We have to bear in mind that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and helps readers as a first stop in any area of research. Someone studying right-wing extremism will find it useful to be able to access the websites of the groups they are studying. Reputable books on right-wing extremism frequently cite primary sources and even include extensive quotes. TFD (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I have studied this very subject at uni, anyone studying right-wing extremism will already be familiar with the site and if they have the wherewithall to study anything above a primary school level then I'm sure they can type a web address, and then to see anything of the site they must become a member...so that's all a moot point. Books about this stuff don't have hyperlinks and when discussing and quoting the content they also give context. I can't really see your point there, helping people access a members only Nazi site doesn't have any real value as leaving off the hyperlink does not even make it hard to access, one has only to type in the URL address. Bacondrum 02:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The article isn't designed for people who already know all about Stormfront. Printed books don't typically have hyperlinks, but they do provide web addresses, which are presumably clickable when read in certain formats. See for example Rhetoric, Race, Religion, and the Charleston Shootings (Rowan & Littlefield 2019). Of course you can say that the website is www.stormfront.com and ask readers to copy and past the address into a new browser page instead of clicking, but that's inconvenient. Are you saying by the way that omitting a link will not deter potential neo-Nazis from accessing the website since all they have to do is type in the url? TFD (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I mean the debates over, we are keeping the url, but yes I think it's wrong to direct traffic to this site. Doesn't really matter what I think though, consensus is against removal and I accept that. Bacondrum 20:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this really written from a neutral point of view?

Misplaced Pages:No_original_research#Neutral_point_of_view

Or are they Weasel_words? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.89.16.105 (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

A lot of sweeping generalizations and shock terminologies are thrown around on this article. I think it's important to consider that they are a broad community and that the actions or words of a few should not speak for the entire group. Weblure (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Go and publish that in a reliable source and we may be able to use it in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Reword in Lead

Currently we have this text in the first paragraph:

"The site is primarily focused on propagating white nationalism, antisemitism, islamophobia, anti-Hinduism, anti-feminism, homophobia, transphobia, Holocaust denial, anti-Catholicism, and white supremacy. In addition to its promotion of Holocaust denial, Stormfront has increasingly become active in the propagation of Islamophobia."

While it propagates all these things, I don't think it's useful to say it is primarily focused on propagating this list of things. For the sake of clarity it would make more sense to choose one or two or maybe three things it primarily promotes, and then list the others as things it also promotes e.g.:

"The site is primarily focused on propagating white nationalism, antisemitism and Islamophobia. In addition it also promotes anti-Hinduism, anti-feminism, homophobia, transphobia, Holocaust denial, anti-Catholicism, and white supremacy."

Thoughts? ----Pontificalibus 08:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

New info?

In light of stormfront's leaked code of conduct, surely there are some additions to be made here, especially to the ideology section? Tqger (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Categories: