Talk:Stormfront (website)

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?

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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

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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia "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 Wikipedia: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)

• 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. Neutrality^talk 05:08, 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^talk 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 Bacondrum (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• No seeing as the URL's link to website of extremists. Idealigic (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• An RfC was started at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#rfc_AC874F6 that covers this issue. Would likely be a better place for anyone looking to opine on the matter. Slywriter (talk) 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? - Wakemeup38 (talk) 02:57, 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 Wikipedia. The argument that linking to a website via Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 'Wikipedia 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)

• Yes: Per Vaticidalprophet's argument. ImTheIP (talk) 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. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia, 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 [1].

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 [emphasis added]. 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 Wikipedia policy is that the project is not censored. Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. However, this does not mean that Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

• 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. PackMecEng (talk) 14:11, 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)

• Delinking serves no purpose except to hinder, inconvenience, and annoy readers who want to use it. That is not acceptable. Alsee (talk) 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. 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)

• How many times do we plan to have this same discussion? Niteshift36 (talk) 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. 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 Wikipedia 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).[2] 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?

Wikipedia: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)