Talk:Stormfront (website)/Archive 3

live links to SF webpages - good or bad?

Some argue that it is hypocrytical for wikipedia to say that live links can be used for some websites but not for hate sites. This is not true.

There are a lot of such constraints - for example, an article about a hardcore pornography film studio is not going to be characterized with the same frankness that would be used for Warner Brothers. An article about a street gang notorious for drug trafficking is not going to feature the same rosy and wholesome characterization that would be found in an article about the Boy Scouts.

As for live links - there still is one. There just aren't going to be as many. Why? It is a mistake to think of 'equal treatment' to all subject matter as being a completely immutable rule. As noted above there are going to be exceptions, whether you like it or not.

No where in the wiki guidelines does it say that equal consideration will be given to all viewpoints. In fact, it says quite the opposite. You are complaining about hypocrisy even though this doesn't contradict wiki policy. In fact, it is in conformity with it.

You can think of the test as this: is the loss to the organization (ie SF) by having only one live link instead of several more or less important than wikipedia's policy interest in not promoting hate websites that advocate illegal activity and violence.

Wiki has the right to choose. The prejudicial effect to SF is small - there is still a live link. The benefits to Wiki in not promoting hate sites are enormous. Their call, if you don't like it you can always find some other place that is more accomodating. Stick to the Facts 01:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Stick-- thanks for chiming in on the live link debate. I had actually erroneously assumed you didn't have a problem with the live links, since you inserted many of them, but I can also see how you'd be very concerned about inadvertantly promoting the hate site.

I put those live links in before I realized the implications this had on SF's hitcount. I'll not support there being more than 1. I inserted them before because YOU actually insisted, incorrectly, that I was obligated to cite "the sky is blue". I was also under the misconception that if I provided more cites then I could finally get people to accept as fact what I wanted put in - that is, of course, before I realized that people were scrapping it no matter what it said. Stick to the Facts 02:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Philosophically, I think you have the wrong test. It's not "Loss to stormfront" vs "Wikipedia's interest in not promoting hatespeech". Stormfront has no rights here, and we don't have to spend even one millisecond of our time worrying about their feelings on the matter, or whether our article will afffect them.

Well if stormfront has no rights here let's just scrap the whole thing - it is so bogged down with mis- and disinformation that it is actually anti-informative and anti-intellectual. I entirely agree that Stormfront has no right here, that wiki is neither an anarchy nor is it a democracy, and wiki can put contstraints on content in any matter it sees fit, reasonable or not. If people want a forum to proselytize let them pay for their own bandwidth and advertising. Stick to the Facts 02:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The real test is this: Our in interest in "Wikipedia is not censored" and "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view" versus our interest in "Wikipedia does not promote hate speech or the organizations that practice it". I think our interest in the former is much more important than our interest in thelatter.

You confuse the terms "censored" and "neutral point of view." I posted something about NPOV and I recommend you check it out, and check out the wiki guidelines. Wiki has other policy interests. It has an interest in not promoting ideologies that are universally accepted as anathema, like genocide. It also does not promote pedophilia, how-to articles on bomb making, or how-to manuals for cooking meth in your kitchen sink. Is that censorship? Then wiki is doing nothing out of the ordinary. Do you think genocide is not as bad as these other things I mentioned? You are so very wrong. It is the most eggregious crime man has ever been able to conceive of. For reasons that I'll never understand, people are almost universally opposed to the other three things I mentioned, but for some reason genocide just doesn't really register with the same negative connotation. Why is that? Perhaps because it is really just too awful a thing to really wrap our minds around - who knows. Think hard about it. Stick to the Facts 02:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The other question is more complicated, and I'll argue by analogy to the legal system. There is the question "What is the law" and there is the questio "What should the law be?". After much discussion, no one has cited any policy which even mentions the possibility of having hidden comments, so I conclude that right now, there is no law compelling that citations be hidden. But, if you feel that Wikipedia SHOULD not have live links to hate sites and you want to change the law, there is a process for that-- you can make a proposal and try to get a consensus to approve it.

--Alecmconroy 02:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken if you think that the legal system does not make rulings on 'law' that is not expressly stated. It happens daily. It is the job of judges to interpret what statutes there are and apply them to unique circumstances in a way that preserves the spirit of the rule. A system that would try to codify a law for every possible permutation would never reach that goal - there is almost always some new twist. There are many judge-made concepts in the law that can't be found in any statute anywhere. If this is a natural progression that stems from having to deal with issues on the fly that aren't expressly stated anywhere, don't be surprised if admins end up doing it too. In fact wiki expressly states that the rules are not hard and fast. Stick to the Facts 02:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Or, we can just hide the SF ref links because we feel it is of benefit to the encyclopedia to hide them, even if no policy spells this out. El_C 02:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If we all DO want to hide them, I suppose we could. But the policy "Wikipedia Is Not Censored" seems to have gotten quite a lot of support over the years. In contrast, until a few day ago, I'd never heard of any support at all for the policy "Wikipedia Is Not Censored (except for links to hate sites-- THOSE we censor)". --Alecmconroy 03:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are getting fixated on one rule - there are actually many and at times they conflict. "Wikipedia is not censored" is not really true. There are many things that are censored. There is also a requirement to use good verifiable sources, to use a particular type of language format, to observe copyright laws, to adhere to NPOV, etc - you can view all of these as a form of censorship, demonstrating that the above 'rule' is not, in fact, immutable. Don't get fixated on one thing - there are MANY factors at play. Stick to the Facts 12:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is what I meant. When I said "policy" above I meant I meant "policy interest" - ie factors that also must be considered because they are in the interests of wikipedia even though they are not expressly stated - as opposed to 'stated policy'. So yes, I agree that wiki can and should hide them if it benefits the encyclopedia to hide them - whether there is a specific prohibition or not. As for the other editors out there, it is pointless to make the argument that this is hypocrisy - wiki in no way says that all points of view get a full voice. In fact it says the exact opposite. Again, please reread NPOV and stop saying it means what you think it means. Stick to the Facts 02:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

removing weasel words

"generally regarded" - a definition of a weasel word

Editors unfortunately concentrated on OR and projecting their bias onto the website. While what is needed is to collect notable third party descriptions. While "neo-nazi" label is, indeed, often used, it's not used all the time. In many important sources Stormfront is not described as neo-nazi. It's just one from a bunch of expletives often applied. "Hate site" is probably the most widely used. "White supremacist" is what, I believe, comes next. Even ADL, as far as I know, doesn't describe Stormfront as a "neo-nazi group". It takes a safe route and uses such generic and catch-all terms as "hate", "bigotry" and "racism".[1]. Some other examples where "neo-nazism" allegation is not present: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] cursory google search. Neither did the (I believe) most recent broadcast about Stormfront (on Florida TV) use the "nazi" label [7]. The owner of the site himself has KKK background and I've never seen him labelled as a "neo-nazi". Poison sf 15:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Poison: A very quick (1minute) google-search showed that the ADL indeed does refer to Stormfront as a "neo-Nazi forum". P.S.: I wonder what Stick_to will make of this post. As we are both the same person, how can i disagree with myself?? -- ExpImp^{talk con} 15:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is more important to describe an organization as it is described by reputable sources than by how it describes itself. Any entity will describe itself in a way that is biased towards its own interests. If we gave more weight to the organization's self-description then McDonalds would be health food, the Patriot Act would be the the greatest thing in protecting human rights since the Bill of Rights. No self description can be NPOV. That is why descriptions of external sources are the most important. If an article says it is a neo-nazi organization, the article should say "the Tishomingo bugle referred to Stormfront as a neo-nazi organization." If Stormfront says 'heck no we're not neo-nazis!' that makes no difference since they have an interest in white-washing. That is also why the statement 'SF doesn't permit advocacy of illegal activity' cannot stand alone without rebuttal - anyone can see it isn't true - their self-description, standing alone, is disinformation even if literally true (ie that they CLAIM to have that policy.)

Nobody says that description must be based on what Stormfont says. You are missing the point or pretending that you do. The point is that not every source claims Stormfront is "neo-nazi", on this ground I objected to the weasel word ("generally regarded"). Poison sf 16:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I depended on that report by them (linked above). Well, what can I say, Stormfront must be magically turning from non-nazi to nazi as time goes :rolleyes:. Or, more likely, it's just a meaningless expletive for them which they use as other people use the f-word and suchlike and don't take too seriously. Poison sf 15:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why you guys are so bothered with getting called a 'neonazi' organization. You seem to like Nazis - your avatars and screen names are just slathered in Nazi excrement. What's the big deal? Are you just filibustering? Stick to the Facts 02:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about your personal opinion. Descriptions should be based on something more substantial. But it may be useful if you understand the difference between "liking somebody" or thinking that something or somebody is not devoid of positive sides and "BEING somebody". But, ok, let's assume that anybody on Stormfront who has a "nazi" avatar or screen name is a real follower of a Nazi ideology. That's not an outlandish assumption and in 90% cases probably would be true (though some may be just flirting with the shock value of it). Even so, you can't seriously claim that *everybody* on Stormfront has a nazi avatar or screenname. This leads to a second important distinction - between a real nazi group (see National_Socialist_Movement_(United_States)) and a group that is a home to people of a VERY broad spectrum of beliefs, including neo-nazis, under a very minimalistic common "umbrella" ideology. As for "being bothered", I'm always bothered when somebody says than an apple is an orange. It's not an issue of having or not having a problem with any of these two fruits, but an apple is still an apple, and an orange is still an orange. Poison sf 16:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW according to the bleeding edge research[8], my sockpuppets are Magnetic and Conserve and you're sockpuppet of Uber. So it makes sence now! Poison sf 15:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have never been able to understand how the spelling nazi puts up with you. "sence?" Stick to the Facts 02:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not a weasel word. if you prefer we'll change it to - it's a nazi site. it's certainly not "critics". Amoruso 03:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a proof or even any serious argument. Poison sf 16:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

number of registered user accounts

Per ElC we will not have cites to SF's website. If you don't agree take it to appeal. Furthermore, even if cites to the website are permissible one is not appropriate in this case. Where did SF get this 'fact'? I want something else other than SF's say so - how do we know it didn't make the number up? I'll give it some time but if no one cites a source then this sentence will come out. Stick to the Facts 14:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I somewhat agree that it's unnecessary. Number of user accounts and of active accounts can be seen on the main page of the forum, so it's trivially verifiable and doesn't require links. Poison sf 16:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well then if no one else objects I'll take it out. Stick to the Facts 16:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL, obviously I referred to putting links to Stormfront there, not the text itself. Poison sf 16:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If this stays in then I am going to quote the ethnic cleansing material. You decide. Stick to the Facts 16:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't blackmail me. Let's discuss this, if you want, try to bring up that ethnic cleansing thing again, but I think at this point it's obvious that the idea doesn't have a lot of support. Unless you come up with better arguments, for example find non-OR material. Poison sf 16:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Look up the definition of the word "blackmail" before you use it. It means demanding something of value in exchange for not releasing material intended to embarrass the person, or implicate them in a crime. That isn't what I did. Add this to the list of words you need to look up - it is getting pretty long. Stick to the Facts 18:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, looking up the definition at webster.com: "extortion or coercion by threats especially [but not necessary-Poison] of public exposure or criminal prosecution". Since you're trying to coerce by threats I think it's a legitimate to use that word (in a figurative sense , of course). If that's confusing, I'll try to use the term "extort/coerce" in the future Poison sf 18:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• On the subject of removing those numbers: I oppose. Numbers are often mentioned in many media sources (articles, TV programs etc). Probably present on big-boards as well (I've problems accesing bigboards though at the moment, but with what I said in previous sentence it's not that important). If you believe they're forged, you can try to find a third party opinion on this from a notable source and include it. Mere suspicion/opinion on your part that they're false is IMO not enough. Poison sf 16:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• I* am not the one who has to prove they are wrong - YOU are the one with the burden of proving they are right. What you say is nonsense. I could just as easily say that "Stormfront is controlled by aliens who have taken over the mind of Don Black" and then demand that you prove they didn't. Absurd. SF should find a different spokesman, your input is a humiliation. Stick to the Facts 18:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to prove you anything. In my view (and so far, looks like not in mine alone), that number is adequately supported by sources, while there's no notable third party opinion that it's forged. End of story Poison sf 18:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL what a joke. Sorry you don't get special treatment. Listen carefully - the article does NOT belong to you. The only source appears to be the SF website enough and that just doesn't cut it. Why not make it 1,000,000? That would be even more impressive. Sorry, we can't take your word for it. Once again, a fact must be supported, proof of its negative does not. Please buy an introductory logic book and read it, it isn't a hard concept to grasp. Stick to the Facts 18:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The number of registered user accounts is on big-boards so add a cite to it. The one for the number of active users is not. Find a cite or delete it. I'm not taking your word for it. Stick to the Facts 18:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Stick, I'm confused by your recent revert. Here, you ask for a cite to back up the sentence which says that SF claims to have X number active users. I found one and added it. But you deleted it with comment "the SF reference covers it". I tend to think the second citation is helpful, as the first cite doesn't back up the active users claim. Do you think a second cite is necessary or not? --Alecmconroy 06:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

@ Stick to the Facts: Since the Stormfront website uses vBulletin, which is a popular commercial forum system, it is highly unlikely that the number is forged, as vBulletin determines the number of forum members based on how many members (rows) are actually in the database. Don Black would have to either modify the source code of the forum or continually register new user accounts himself (both of which I equally highly doubt). The large membership of the forum has been cited a number of times by many sources, including ones like the ADL and SPLC, and the member count is listed on big-boards.com. There is no notable third-party source alleging that the number is faked, as Poison sf pointed out, so this is something that would be considered "common knowledge". --Ryodox 19:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Does vbulletin produce a number of actives? Point out where it says it other than in a blurb on the SF page. That doesn't show where the number came from. For what we know it is just a made up number and that isn't good enough. Stick to the Facts 21:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The total number is fine but not the number of actives. And as for there being no notable third party source suggesting it is faked - that is entirely irrelevant. A fact must be proven - if you want the number of actives in you need a reliable source. Big boards is fine but they don't give that info. I haven't seen it anywhere except as a conclusory statement by SF with nothing to back it up. if SF claims that it was given a subsidy of 10 million dollars by the Red Cross for humanitarian relief do you expect to be able to put THAT in, even without proof that it is false? Gimme a break. Stick to the Facts 21:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

So, this whole thread has been illustrative. There certainly is nothing wrong with questioning the reliability of Stormfront as a source-- as I've said, their reliability is practically nonexistent. So, if SF is the only source we can find, I expect I'm okay with prefacing anything they say with "Storfront claims..." or "Stormfront says...". Similarly, if there are multiple sources that could back up a sentence, it seems wise to cite the most reliable source we can find, which in almost every case will NOT be SF. And, in some cases where we can't find a better source, we should follow Reliable sources, which expressly allows citing such websites in order to relate their own claims.

No that is unacceptable. As I have pointed out they need merely say that the number of active users is whatever they want and if that is the only source then we cannot be expected to believe it. I know that big-boards gives the number of registered user accounts so I am ok with that one, but not the active accoutns unless I see something to back it up. Stick to the Facts 21:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

But surely you admit that the citation does indeed back up "Stormfront claims to have X number of active accounts"--Alecmconroy 21:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That isn't what it says. Stick to the Facts 21:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you like it to say that? --Alecmconroy 00:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Stick, as for the Arbcom-- I have a Request of Arbitration all filled out and ready to go, but I want to make sure that we've done all we can to resolve this dispute without them. A few days ago, it looked like Arbcom might be the only forseeable resolution, but now it seems like we're making some substantial progress towards resolution. We have a strong consensus now that there is no policy which compels the deletion of these citation. El_C appears to have withdrawn his role as an admin in this matter accordingly. So, perhaps we won't have to bother ArbCom after all, and can just resolve this matter through the usual channels, as we would with any other editor who is deleting citations without being supported by a consensus.

--Alecmconroy 21:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead with the ArbCOm. This place needs some house cleaning. Stick to the Facts 21:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

As of this moment, I don't see any major impediment to just dealing with deletion of citations through the usual process., i.e. talking more, warning you for deleting citations, and asking for admin intervention. But, if you think we're ready to have them rule on it, you can go ahead and fill out you half of the the request for arbitration. I don't think it matters who goes first, so long as whoever goes first is convinced that's the only option. I'm not quite there yet, but if you are, I understand. --Alecmconroy 21:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"The number of registered user accounts is on big-boards so add a cite to it. The one for the number of active users is not. Find a cite or delete it. I'm not taking your word for it" Holy ----! Un-freaking-believable. Stick, it was you(!!!) who added that part about active users, and for the purpose of neutrality I deemed it fair to accept this. Now, a 180 degree turn. You're on a mission to waste time of people here or what. Argghhh! Poison sf 16:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering how vBulletin autogenerates the information on how many active users there are and how User:Stick to the Facts keeps on deleting entries to Stormfront, this fact will never be included. Just for the sake of argument, you wanted to see how many there are you would: go to http://www.stormfront.org scroll down until you saw "Stormfront White Nationalist Community Statistics" (or use Ctrl+F to find it faster...) and mouse over the Active Members, it would show how many active members there were "Within the Last 180 Days". See example image: http://img337.imageshack.us/my.php?image=activesfusersiv0.jpg Romulasry 04:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

don black advocating crime on Stormfront website

I'm just letting you know that I'm going to add an entry regarding this sometime soon:

On the SF website an article by the New Times is reproduced. Don is quoted as saying: "We want to take America back....White's won't have any choice but to take military action. It's our children whose interests we have to defend." I will cite the New Times article and also note that it is reproduced on the SF website. Stick to the Facts 19:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Stormfront allows to cite any mass media articles or other print works for the purpose of discussion, whatever they may contain. There was never a doubt about that. Poison sf 16:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Fox Advertising Stormfront

[9] has everybody seen this foxnews(so.carolina) "story" (it's more of an ad if you ask me) on stormfront ???? I would say LOL, if it wasn't that serious.-- ExpImp^talkcon 21:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

fox news is a fucking joke. nothing but racist republican dickheads. I know O'Reily loved, fucking pervert! SICK!

don't whitewash what the site is about

It's best to say it's a white nationlist supermacist neo nazi site in the opening sentence. then the media reports of why it's criticized. do not whitewash the glorification of adolf hitler either. Amoruso 02:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

illegal activity

I added the part from the "The Racist Next Door" article. It is referenced to an outside media source - do not remove. Stick to the Facts 03:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Good job, Stick! Excellent, excellent, excellent. This is EXACTLY the kind of artice I've been wanting us to find. An entire NYTimes piece just about Black & Stormfront. This certainly isn't original research! :) So, it's a whole new world now.

Based on this, I've written a new section that explicitly talks about the two points of conflict we've had on this article lately: Neo-Nazism on Stormfront and Stormfront's advocacy of violence. It had seemed like we could just find a neutral single sentence and put it to rest, but in light of the new source and the edit warring over the issue, I'm inclined to feel it's now appropriate to discuss these two issues at length, so I wrote a section discussing them. In both cases, I followed the formula:

1. Say that Stormfront denies advocating neo-nazism/violence, and perhaps one piece of evidence suggesting this denial is valid.

2. State that many others dispute this denial.

3. List all of the evidence from the reliable sources that people use to dispute that denial.

Given how controversial this text has been, good cititaion here is critical, and a few are missing. The NYTimes and the Souther Poverty Law Center sources can support most of the evidence. It's been said that Stormfront denies being a Neo-Nazi site or advocating violence-- we should find and cite those denials. They may be somewhere in one of the older versions, I'm not sure.

Also-- I did include Black's attempted invasion of Dominica, but I didn't speculate on his motives for doing so. Stick, when we talked about it earlier, it seemed like the controversial factor was his motives-- whether they were white nationalist or whether they were more for personal gain through drug-running. I for one think that the attempted violent invasion of a foreign power is very essential to the article-- it demonstrates very clearly that Black is no Gandhi, and Stormfront doesn't just 'talk' about this hypothetical race war-- its founder was willing to undertake a military-style operation to acheive his aims. Storm, I know you mentioned the concern that the stormfront types are actually PROUD of this and including it would be advertising-- but they're really not our main audience, and I think this past history of violence is absoltely critical to underscoring that the site isn't "just a bunch of kooks" but really are capable of actual violence. Anyway, I don't mean for this to be edit warred over or anything-- Stick, if you really think that we shouldn't mention it, go ahead and take it out, but I really think it's critical, if we're going to allege advocacy of violence, to mention that Black is, in fact, a violent offender with a prison record.

Anyway, I hope everyone likes it! :) --Alecmconroy 10:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Semi-ok. I toned down passage about National Alliance and some other stuff. Also the allegation about Stormfront as pro-NA is very outdated :). Post the NA-National Vanguard split the tone was pretty critical of NA and even prior to that it's controversial whether the critique was "censored". Moderators claim that they remove only gossip and other "malicious" and "unconstructive" critique. While they may be not impartial, some critique was, indeed, always present (even prior to NA/NV split). Poison sf 18:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

stormfront and nazism

I'd like to see a source that says stormfront distances itself from nazism and doesn't believe in their ideology. It seems strange that 90% of the users have nazi avatars, that ADolf Hitler is chosen in a poll as the most popular guy ever, that posts routinely quote nazis and praise their actions etc. Amoruso 11:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we absolutely have to have such source, or else the claim that SF isn't neo-nazi will have to come out as original research, and we can just start referring to it AS a neo-nazi site, rather than "a white nationalist site with neo-nazi content, neo-nazi culture, and a founder who was a former member of the american nazi party". I assume that there is some high level denial from Black, but, so far I haven't seen it. --Alecmconroy 11:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You mean that poll with 100 votes? Somehow I'm not convinced. 90% nazi avatars are IMO total BS. How did you count that? Poison sf 18:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

We are perfectly entitled to characterize it is a neo-nazi site because that is what third party media calls it. As I've said elsewhere, the description of an organization by outsiders is MORE important than it's self description because the article is ABOUT the organization, not written BY it or FOR it.

It is preposterous for anyone to insist that it has to say "pro and critical of hitler" etc. The pro outweighs any critical content by 100:1 when you factor in all the hitler icons and lame "88" type stuff. Stick to the Facts 12:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh really. Somehow, I don't take MOOTSF posters as neutral arbiters to impartially weight the pro and critical content. To observe that there's some pro content as well as contra and both varieties are allowed is a relatively trivial task. To weight it is a non-trivial task and a task that shouldn't be entrusted to people with an axe to grind. Poison sf 18:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that mention of the pro-neo-nazi content is even debatable. We now have many, many reliable sources talking about the Neo-Nazi content contained on the site. The only question now is-- do we even mention the claim that it ISN'T a neo-Nazi site? If we can come up with a cite that says Black/SF does officially deny it, then we can mention that denial-- but certainly, the weight of the evidence is against that denial-- if, indeed, SF even makes that denial. --Alecmconroy 13:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Amoruso 14:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the owner of the site describes the website as white nationalist. I guess that's your "denial". Stormfront can't be bothered to give explicit "denials" on every label the media or somebody else can come up with. But he had also made his position clear that he's not inclined to ban pro-nazi content or sentiment in any way (there were proposals and even some sort of an open poll). Apparently he doesn't see the presence of nazis as anything remotely close to a problem, that's for sure, and there's indeed pro-nazi content, that's undebatable... Poison sf 18:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I also changed few things in the lead section. First, removed member self-description as nazi passage - as one-sided and apparently added to make a point. I've moved this to the nazism-related section (in npov form, mentioning other descriptions). I've also corrected the sentence which was putting two unrelated things together in a construction suggesting some correlation (which is not necessarily there): meaning the views permitted on forum and comments of the founder in an interview. I've changed the second part of the sentence to "it is sometimes accused of not fully enforcing this policy", which is IMO more proper there. Black's comment is still mentioned in the neo-nazism / violence section, where these issues are discussed at length. Poison sf 19:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You guys demanded I get a cite from a third party news source that states the patently obvious about SF - I got it. You got what you asked for, now do NOT touch it.

It is straight from Don Black's mouth, reported in a paper, and you guys even have it reprinted on your own site. Mission accomplished. Stick to the Facts 22:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The Black quote is repeated in the article; is this necessary? Also, I think that since Stormfront does not use Nazi imagery and permits critical discussion of Nazism in "closed" forums (accessible to members who have been through the moderation process), it's not a neo-Nazi website.

--Ryodox 23:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I do think that having direct quote in the lead section is unnecessary. The lead isn't the place to present evidence, it's the place to summarize the major outline of the article. So, I'm okay with that particular sentence being removed from the lead.

But as for the allegations of Nazism-- your not going to have much luck there. There are gobs and gobs of stories that tie SF to Neo-Nazism. Most reliable sources just refer to it as Neo-Nazi site, and there's lots of evidence pointing to ties between SF and Neo-Nazism, not the least of which is the copy of Mein Kampf included on the site and its founder's former membership in the American Nazi party.

If you want to seriously refute the claims of Neo-Nazism, you need some reliable sources explicitly saying that SF is NOT a Neo-Nazi site. Now, let's talk about what ISN'T a reliable source that SF isn't Neo-Nazi. Cites that call SF "White Nationalist" doesn't disprove it being Neo-Nazi-- you can certainly be both. Specific forum threads that criticize Neo-Nazism are NOT reliable sources for the site as a whole-- we established this earlier. So, you can't just find a few postings critical of hitler and mention it as reflective of the site as a whole. Similarly, a statement from Black denying links to Nazism isn't a reliable source for saying SF isn't neo-nazi-- Black isn't reliable for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is his obvious personal bias.

Now, to be sure-- Black is a reliable source for proving that Black publically denies SF is Neo-Nazi (if, indeed, he does deny it, which right now, we have no evidence of). So, if there's some official stomrfront statement denying neo-nazism, by all means, we can quote that denial, but we still don't need to give it equal weight, and reduce all statements to "critics say SF is neonazi". The reliable sources show that SF _IS_ neo-nazi, we MAY find a source that says Black denies that fact, but until there are reliable news sources that 'debunk' the 'myth' that SF is neonazi, we don't have any reason to treat this issue as a point over which there is a legitimate debate.

Unless I've overlook some source, as of this moment, the claim that SF isn't neo-nazi is Original Research. Even the claim that SF denies being Neo-Nazi is original research. Indeed, even the claim that anyone even doubts SF is neo-nazi is, as of this momemnt, Original Research. If Stormfront does deny this, we need a source to say so. If we don't have a source that says so, then No Original Research requires that for the purposes of this article, EVERYONE agrees that SF is neo-nazi--- even if you, personally, happen to not agree with that.

--Alecmconroy 00:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've to disagree with you on the "White nationalist" versus "neo-nazi" description. The former is indeed an implied "denial" or the latter. When somebody uses one descriptive term instead of another, it's logical to assume that one at the very least believes that the used term is more appropriate. E.g. one can say "apple is green", and usually it's not added "and not yellow". That's implied. Many media sources, some of which I previously listed somewhere around here, don't use "nazism" label and use other terms. An explicit denial would also be good, but, for the purpose of using it in the article, such a claim probably can only come from the webmaster and founder, that is, Don Black. AFAIK, he didn't bother to make such claims in the past. But, there're enough cases when he describes the site both using "white nationalist" term or in more detailed ways than just a single -ism. That can be quoted to represent the Stormfront's position on this issue. Actually, that's what I did in the "nazism / violence" section. Also, it should be noted, that AFAIK nobody so far purports to add some strong claim that "Stormfront is definitely not nazi" or remove from there notable evidence for other points of view on the issue Poison sf 14:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the claim that SF isn't neoNazi is original research and doesn't belong in the article unless it can be supported by a reliable source. Also - SF DOES use Nazi imagery - any argument that it is both pro and con hitler or nazism is a complete joke. As for the illegality clause - this is far more important in the lead paragraph do rebutt the claim that SF doesn't promote illegal activity. I can produce thousands of posts that defy this rule, many of them by moderators. I finally found one quoted by a newspaper - straight from the Webmasters mouth and reproduced on the SF website. It was demanded that I produce it, I produced it, and now it stays. Stick to the Facts 11:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Stick-- I tend to disagree with your last edit. It's a specific fact and a specific quote-- not an overview. It's most appropriately placed in the block of text which discusses the whole promotion of violence issue. You say you include it in the lead to rebut the claim that SF doesn't promote illegality-- but no such claim is made in the lead-- only later in the section on violence promotion do we hear stormfront's denial (which, of course, we still need a cite for).

In general, however, there are enough issues of contention on this page that I would strongly suggest that you and poision (and anyone else) make a Request for Mediation so that someone who is experienced in content disputes can help resolve the edit wars that are plaguing the article. I'd be happy to chime in on that discussion when I feel it would be helpful, but, i think you two would both need to agree to do the bulk of the mediation in order for it to find a true resolution. Just changing things back and forth, though, really isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

--Alecmconroy 13:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see [10] this version, in it most of citation issues have been resolved. IMO it fixed problems currently in the article, unfortunately it was reverted by Stick with a total nonsense of an explanation "rv - you asked for a cite and you got it - do NOT touch it again" (I've no idea what he means, maybe he's again developing a delusion that if he puts a "cite" - a link that is - the passage is automatically NPOV or untouchable). To go to mediation we first need to identify post pressing issues. I'm pretty busy now and missing a lot what is going on here. What are the issues that are truly controversial and debatable?

• "prominent" - I see some debates over this, IMO it's not even a question that this word is used legitimately. Prominent usually implies prominent among its own kind, which Stormfront definitely is. If it was simply "a prominent Internet forum", then, perhaps, it would be debatable (as there're much bigger and more known general forums), but "a prominent white nationalist / white pride / white supremacist forum" is IMO undisputable. Spurious complains by Stick.
• An issue that I've: that somebody (must be Stick) inserted "Nazi" self-description into lead, omitting other self-description. Strongly oppose this. But consider legit to give this an additional mention in the "nazism" section.
  • It should also be noted that "neo-nazi" is usually a polemical label. Self-identification is usually "National Socialist". Poison sf 14:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• "Nazism/violence" section of course requires a lot of work, it was already largerly fixed by me previously (fixing "citation needed" issues etc), but it was discarded by Stick. I'm planning on restoring the section in that form. Poison sf 13:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

prominent

I have no problems with the word "prominent". I think the fact behind the statement is undisputed-- Stormfront is the most visited/most notable/whatever white nationalist site. The only question is what term we use to describe this fact. The ADL uses the term "most popular" [11], but this is something of a misnomer, since SF is not "popular" in the sense of "well-liked by many". I think "prominent" is a fine way to describe it, but whatever term we used, we absolutely should mention that the underlying fact (SF is most visited/notable) in the first sentence or two. So, the question is-- what term should we use. "Prominent" is the best I've heard. I'd be okay with "most-widely accessed" too, but it sounds awkward.

Black quote in lead

There is no call for this level of specificity in the lead, and the quote is desperately needed to promote the "Promotion of Violence" section. This change makes the article schiziophrenic-- talking about something in the lead without establishing context, and establishing context later but not backing it up with evidence.

National Socialist -vs- Neo-Nazi

People may self-identify as National Socialists, but I think "Neo-Nazi" is a better term. For one, few people are familiar with the term "National Socialist". Secondly, "National Socialist" most accurately refers to the 1930-40s German movement, while the Neo-Nazi is a distinct political movement which, while certainly inspired by and historically connected to National Socialism, is not exactly synonymous with it either.

It all depends on a context. It may be fine as a general description , but I'm referring specifically to a case when saying that "somebody describes himself as...". It's best IMO to use the most verbatim version, not polemical label that people usually don't use to describe themselves. I don't know, maybe it can confuse some people (?) - do some have a problem understanding what National Socialism is? I don't know. But, I think, in the context of Nazism/violence section it should be not very confusing to anybody. Poison sf 12:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes-- I agree that when we explicitly talk about what people self-identify as, "National Socialist" is fine. For example, as in the sentence "Many Stormfront users describe themselves as National Socialists". Similarly, if we directly quote someone who uses the term "National Socialist", we should leave the quote intact, not substitute "neo-nazi" into the quote. I just meant to say that we shouldn't let these self-identification dictate what terminology we use in the article at large. The reliable third-party sources prefer the term Neo-Nazi for reasons of increased recognizibility and to highlight some of the distinctions between it and the NSDAP. When we describe the individuals ourselves-- rather than quoting them, we should use the term "Neo-Nazi" over "National Socialist" --Alecmconroy 14:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There are a couple of other reversions goining on that haven't been talked about, that I don't fully understand what the dispute is. So, let's talk about it.

--Alecmconroy 02:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If some Wicks are Slicks, and some Slicks are Snicks, then not all Wicks are Snicks. Maybe this is not a debate anymore, but here's my 2 cents: Stormfront is about WN and what that (could, should) be. To many on the site (neo-)nazism is a part of WN, to others it isn't. (One person for instance wrote that he was against Nazism because Hitler had a strict gun-control policy.) The "umbrella" of stormfront is WN. To describe it as neo-nazi would be inprecise and logically incorrect in my view. Because this article is about people who identify themselves as a group, the description of what that group is, should be accurate.

Another thing I noticed on stormfront is that there is a lot of emphasis on "education". Members discuss how to represent WN and what to say in discussions with others. Members exchange arguments and viewpoints that could be used to convince "antis". This aspect of stormfront is missing from the article in my view. Or would saying this be considered original research?Slow Motion, Quick Thinking 01:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Meant to sign that, sorry Slow Motion, Quick Thinking 01:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Make love, not (edit) war

I just undid a revert, that deleted a number of good additions-- that SF has been mentioned on HBO, that the site has Mein Kampf on it and compliments Hitler, and a couple other things. In general, let's work towards discussing these sorts of things, rather than deleting them.

I don't see what the objection is to prominent. The definition seems to be "noticable, widely known", which seems to apply. "Most widely accessed" doesn't really cover it, because SFs notability is beyond just the internet sphere-- it's routinely discussed, as we've seen, on HBO and other media. There might be a better word than prominent, but it's certainly an acceptable world-- don't fight over it. -

-Alecmconroy 13:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Posted to Stick's talk page: Stick-- why are you deleting these sections. You were the one who wanted text that showed SF extolls Hitler. I agreed that was something good, and found a cite, and used it to prove they have pro-hitler crap they have on their website. Why do you want it deleted? I thought you were the one who wanted it added in the first place? --Alecmconroy 05:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Posted to Alemconroy's user page

Sure, put it back in if you like but please don't touch the Don Black illegal activity part in the first section. Stick to the Facts 16:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. I'm not going to mess with that intro paragraph-- that is something that you guys will have to work out in mediation, and it's sort of tangential to my major interest in this article. Please, don't delete any more citations. As you can see, we need those cites if we're going to be able to prove that SF is neo-nazi, or that its founder supports violence. I know El_C was trying to help, but he really made stuff worse by telling you there was some rule mandating the deletion of such links. Time has shown that he was completely incorrect about that point. There isn't any such rule, there never has been. I'm willing to keep out of these minor content disputes and let ya'll sort it out with the mediator, but I'm going forceful on this citation deletion point. --Alecmconroy 17:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say, it's nice to see how it worked out. The article is in better shape, the edit-warring has (kind of) ceased..... my best wishes to all, including Stick_to. -- ExpImp^talkcon 21:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

In the lead these two sentences follow each other: "Its critics and the media, however, often describe it as a Neo-Nazi organisation and accuse it of promoting racism and hate speech. [1][2] [3][4][5] Stormfront is widely criticized for its Neo-Nazi content, and opponents of the site accuse it of serving as a forum for the advocacy of violence." Is it just me, or does the second sentence just repeat whats in the first ??? I personally would delete the second, or incorporate it into the first, but better ask what you guys think....-- ExpImp^talkcon 06:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here is my chance to get a good laugh. 12 or maybe 24 hours ago, I was part of a “coalition of Zionist lovers”. Now I get to change hats and become a Nazi Stormtrooper (Or so says Stick) Only on WP…

Anyway, I digress...

I would combine the two together, and keep only the three strongest references. This here: [1][2] [3][4][5] , takes up enough space to affect readability/usability. Most things require only a single strong reference, and even in the most controversial cases, speaking only for myself; I can not imagine needing more than three. So if it where me, combine, and jettison the two weakest references.

I combined the two sentences and hid two references. They are still there as an inline comment.-- ExpImp^talkcon 09:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, it might be time to archive the talk page again, load time is getting to be a little long. Brimba 08:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. *g* -- ExpImp^talkcon 08:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please quit adding "racist" and "supremacist" definitions to the article.

A few editors here have been adamant that the descriptions "racist" and "supremacist" be included in the article. However the website may offend you, I implore you to realize that supremacism, world dominance, Nazism and other such extremes are not espoused by the Stormfront community as a whole nor are included in the OFFICAL mission of the site.

Therefore, I propose that any new content added to this article be true and accurate to the basic claims of the website, and let the public who may visit the site later gather their own conclusions about the website themselves.

Remember, Wikipedia is neither a Fascist nor a Leftist website, so let's be vigilant that the information doesn't teeter one way or another. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snesgamer (talk • contribs) 01:49, 11 October 2006.

I oppose your proposal as i don't understand it. please clarify, especially on "accurate to the basic claims of the website".

additionally i can't understand you objections to

1. "Stormfront is [a] [...] white supremacist forum"
2. "The articles posted there often [...] strongly advocate such views as [...] nazism..."

please tell me what is objectionable about these two quotes ?-- ExpImp^talkcon 00:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

as you did not react, neither here nor on your talk page, i readd the parts you deleted. feel free to discuss it here, nonetheless.-- ExpImp^talkcon 09:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm beginning to understand the complications between us - aside from posting here and now within the Stormfront website, I haven't really checked deep if there are any offical statements or not. I shall do so on the weekend when I have more private Internet access (can't safely access Stormfront from my current position). I am not 100% actually sure whether they have any such offical statements or not - perhaps quotations gleaned from Don Black, the leader's, posts would be the most accurate source? (This removes possible bias from people attacking and/or defending Stormfront)? Perhaps something from the Forum Guidelines (which details what may or may not be posted on the website? (this has a small bearing on what the site represents)? Let me know how you feel about this. Until then, I will respectfully let the deletions stay in the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Snesgamer (talk • contribs)

Please sign your comments on the talk page with the sign symbol (3rd from the right in the toolbar)... I'm perfectly happy to see you looking at this, but i don't quite get what you want to do? What about the Forum Guidelines ? Your last sentence, however, is clear, and i'm happy were not back in editwar-land (see above discussions). greetings.-- ExpImp^talkcon 22:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Stormfront.org and Bertelsmann Media Group comparison section

The media group Bertelsmann, which is now reported as the forth largest music-media company in the world(World music market), did in truth historically publish Nazi works. Would a comparative section about this be relevant or would it be too inflamative and arbitrary to even mention. This section could, by way of historically comparing Stormfront.org and the Bertelsmann group,- display current morals, current/then parlance, economy, and the way that history is subjective due to being made of chaotic individuals and their economic system/culture, that Stormfront is part of these systems too and that the system of belief surrounding the observation of these things(Nazism) is determined by strange and subtle external forces. For example the genocide of Jews by Nazi Germany and the death's of Black Americans in Prison, both being arbitrary phenomena occuring due to economic political situations, different words and setups but the same physical outcome. A section about this could come under 'unsourced wikipedia content' or 'original research', but if someone was interested in the above idea as a section or possibly as an entire article, i would be open to help, with bibliography and other external references which must surely exist. In fact this information could exist on wikipedia already, i will do a search. I think a section about this comparison is important and relevant to maybe assist cleaning up the main article of Stormfront to being more objective and using a less passionate vocabulary.Book M 12:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

re-reading the above i would like to point out that i do not really know how much the website Stormfront.org has to do with the Nazi or Neo-Nazi, but in vernacular terms there is a perceptive link. Book M 12:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

disagree. your only touching points are "media" and "fascism". you could also compare it to "Der Stürmer" or "Die Wochenschau". none of them have a relevance to Stormfront.-- ExpImp^talkcon 02:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Mootstormfront and One People's Project, suggested merger

Mootstormfront should be moved to the One People's Project because according to their wiki entry: "OPP, as the group is often referred to, was also the birthplace of the noted antiracist (and recently relaunched) discussion community MootStormfront..." Moving mootstormfront here is a better idea then listing opposing spin-off forums on this wiki page. It isn't allowed on other wiki pages, so it shouldn't be mentioned here -- besides it is far more relevant (not to mention, the people there are far more knowledgable on the topic) IMHO. --Romulasry 03:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be linked from both, IMHO. Mootstormfront is just not notable w/out Stormfront.-- ExpImp^talkcon 18:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The question is it allowed on other pages or not. Spin-off forums are removed on all wiki pages I have seen -- Why should this wiki page be any different? Romulasry 00:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please give an example, so i can understand what you mean ?-- ExpImp^talkcon 11:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fucked_Company#Spinoff_Web_sites_absolutely_should_be_included Romulasry 22:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

to be frank, i dont know anything about mootstormfront, so i dont want to saay too much about it, but you might be right: if there is no coverage of mootstormfront from a WP:RS, the addition of mootstormfront to the article is WP:OR. i had a quick look and it seems as if only wikipedia mirrors, forum posts, and ytmdn-sites link to mootstormfront.

• link of note: [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=293263 stormfront.org, discussion on this article]-- ExpImp^talkcon 20:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed Mootstormfront, the MootStormfront link, and a redirect added to the Mootstormfront page. Thank you. Romulasry 06:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

My major concern is the mootstormfront section of the article is just factually incorrect. Mootstormfront was launched in 2004 and has been running for around 2 years now, not the 6 months that the article suggests, and with 125 active visitors, from a period of two years, is the site even worthy of a mention? I was alerted to this article after reading an article on the citizens against hate website, http://www.citizensagainsthate.com/web/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=459 about stormfront, and in that article it discusses the origins of mootstormfront "The success of that particular team, who were clearly working together in a very efficient and planned manner, was such that they not o¬nly attracted well known names, such as George Burdi, the reformed Nazi, and founder of the white power record label Resistance, to step forward to be humiliated, but they also lead to spin off sites such as mootstormfront, that enjoyed a brief flirtation with popularity, as it became a refuge for defeated visitors to lick their wounds and obsess over the team that had inflicted the defeats upon them." It seems to me that this wikipedia article has been having a little creative editing to project a very false view of mootstormfront, and that the site is merely a small collection of around 100 people, defeated in debate on another site, who formed a new forum, two years ago, as a social club to lick their respective wounds. I ask again, is this really a site worthy of mention? I may be wrong but it appears to me that a small, insignificant site is merely piggybacking a larger site for some free advertising.

(Sorry if I haven't submitted this right, but I just thought you should know that what stands at present is pure fiction)

The idea that any of the MSF team were ever "defeated" in debate on SF sounds like WN fiction/fantasy to me. The only opportunity any of the SF mod team ever had to "defeat" the likes of Descendant, Mansa, Thinker and rach came when active threads were locked and edited by them as prophylaxis against embarrasment. If you have relevant examples of any of the above being "defeated," please feel free to link to them. But that's unlikely, as they simply do not exist.

The desire to debate on an honest Opposing Views forum that wouldn't be rigged to prevent constant humiliation at the hands of antis was the primary motivation for the creation of MSF, which rarely references Stormfront at this time and is now simply a very well-known race debate forum presented from an antiracist point of view.

However, it is correct that it was launched in October 2004 and not February 2006. In 2006, the site was rebooted after falling offline several months earlier. It now enjoys its highest traffic ever. Kamandi October 30, 2006

No, it sounds like something the citizens against hate published in an article, as linked above, that's hardly wn fiction is it, seeing as that is an anti-racist source. It's also widely known in debate circles, or perhaps you can show proof to the contrary? Also using independent means to check the traffic of MSF your statement that it is experiencing it's greatst traffic ever is also a lie. I was right though, a google on your name shows you to be the MSF admin, so there is someone here who is misleading people and editing the article to show a false picture. You have been rumbled Mr Kamandi. I think the MSF mention should be removed, it's a sham entry to try and gain traffic from another source, especially when, by your own admission ypur site is one "which rarely references Stormfront" How can you be a counter forum if you don't mention the site you are meant to be countering, and please, drop the sham wn/nazi insults/insinuations, it's not becoming, and frankly offensive, as well as breaching wikipedia rules.

Conformation that the statement about MSF traffic was false: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?compare_sites=mootsf.org&range=max&size=medium&y=p&url=mootstormfront.org It's not even hitting 50% of it's relaunch traffic, and is currently getting only 1/8th of the traffic it got at it's peak (under it's previous domain name). I think in the interests of honesty, factual integrity, and impartiality, Mr Kamandi needs to be removed from this discussion. I've also forwarded these messages, to avoid malicious alterations. 195.226.230.58 23:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to maliciously alter your illogical post, Mr User 195.226.23.58; I'll just dismiss it with a shrug and bored expression on my face - page views are NOT a valid measure of the business of a discussion forum.

Only the post count, total posts and total membership are.

The raw number of persons who log on. including the many who do so without registering or posting, is immaterial. All of the important criteria are at their peak. For example, the highest number of users ever online at once occurred last June, and we now have more posts per day than at any time prior. Of course, our membership and post count are at their highest as well.

Next, regarding the Citizens Against Hate article: as was noted in its introduction, it was simply submitted anonymously and is of unknown authorship. It doesn't carry the CAH seal of accuracy and it was posted for the sole purpose of offering some insight into SF's decline, not as an objective, documented history of MSF, which it was not.

The source was NOT "anti" - it was written by some anonymous WN and then posted for a laugh by CAH.

Again, if you have any links demonstrating any history of the MSF staff ever being defeated on Stormfront, please post them. A claim by an anonymous individual is not "documentation" by Wiki standards.

As far as the counterforum business goes, MSF was founded in counterpoint to Stormfront, but grew past that long ago. It's now much more of a general interest race debate community presented from an anti perspective.

That doesn't change the fact that it was originally created as a resource to debunk Stormfront.

Kamandi November 3rd, 2006

Mr Kamandi I really do think your persistent deceit should have you removed from this discussion. In in your last post you were quite explicit, and stated "It now enjoys its highest traffic ever" and as I showed that was simply not true.

Now you wish to change the criteria, from traffic, but the criteria you list as all time highs are again not, this is totally ridiculous, before the MSF entry, in it's own right, was removed you claimed (and seeing as you are obviously an unreliable source this is an unreliable claim) an active membership of over 300, it is now just over 100, how can you claim more members than ever.

Were you posting deceitful material on wikipedia before, or are you doing so now?

Like wise your post count, your traffic, and everything else is not at a peak. You are simply sitting here lying trying to protect your place on the stormfront wikipedia page to piggyback their traffic.

As for the article on CAH I won't bother responding, I will once again let your own words damn you, first you say "it was simply submitted anonymously" but then you say it was posted by a WN. How can you know the authors political leanings if the article is anonymous?

You seem to have a habit Mr Kamandi, of dismissing any voice that opposes you personally as being the voice of a WN or a Nazi, with absolutely no justification, which again I remind you is just abusive language, and against the rules of wikipedia. Please stop such offensive behavior immediately or I will have no option but to write to the admin and ask to have you removed and blocked from this service. You can not continue to insult people here, and elsewhere with your ridiculous taunts of WN/Nazi etc.

Finally, again you admit that the site MSF is not a counter forum, and therefore why do you object to it's removal from this page?

Why should a site that has attracted only around 100 active members, over a period of two years, that has traffic that has declined to 1/8th of it's peak, and that is not a counter site to stormfront, be listed as a counter site to stormfront?

If you do feel an urge to answer that can you do it without posting deceitful claims this time? 195.226.230.58 23:32, 03 November 2006 (UTC)

I dismiss voices which say things that are silly, irrelevant and/or nonsensical, like, for example, yours - I never intended my comments regarding our "traffic" to apply to raw page views, which aren't an appropriate index of the success of a discussion forum in the first place.

The number of lurkers and Google/Yahoo spiders on the site at any moment really has very little to do with the volume of registered users participating in our discussions, the only legitimate measure of our community's growth.

While we may have only over a hundred active members, we have about 1000 members total, many of whom, because they, unlike SF posters, typically have jobs, academic careers, families, and so on, can't log in and post every day. They still make it in when they can, which is why we can boast of over 100,000 total posts in less than three active years.

And while the site WAS indeed conceptualized as a "counterforum," I think it's fair to say that it's evolved with time. Since it's unwise to alter a successful brand, I've chosen to retain the title "Mootstormfront," but that doesn't necessarily imply that Stormfront is any longer our essential focus. Things grow and change with the passing seasons.

Furthermore, no reasonable person would ever read the anonymous article posted on the CAH site - filled with glowing praise and warm remarks concerning the activities and ideological goals of WNs and Nazis like Playfair, SDY, JohnJoyTree, Jackboot, etc. - and come away thinking was written by anyone who fails to share WN views.

Claiming that because the anonymously authored article was extrapolated from the CAH website, it's therefore accurate as it supposedly derives from an "anti source" is just a little disingenuous. You really shouldn't make any noises about "impartiality" with that as the centerpiece of your argument.

Once more, if you disagree, just offer us some links to SF as a rebuttal.

Kamandi November 3rd, 2006

I've put the mootstormfront link back, it was placed in during a 'settlement agreement' after the great Stormfront Edit War of September, 2006. Another term of that agreement was to remove all but one stormfront link. You have several now, and that's bad enough. The mootstormfront link was there even before the armistice and it survived it and as far as I'm concerned you can't have the Rhineland back now. Stick to the Facts 04:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You have your page back here: mootstormfront so please stop adding links that are irrelevant to the article at hand. Romulasry 23:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Why does Mootstormfront deserve a link? It has nothing to do with Stormfront!

---

David Duke is a malignant narcissist

Have any of you come across an article titled, "David Duke is a malignant narcissist" on Stormfront? 69.167.103.146

I am aware of it. Stick to the Facts 04:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Stormfront Website Down Recently

I check into that website on a regular basis to read the common thought of the day and found this message there today:

There is no website configured at this address.

Looks like their website has been hacked today. Does this happen often to them?

"Googling" this subject, I found that apparently someone named "Richard Warman"[12] engages in taking down websites he doesn't like. From what I read, the website has been down for a few days.[13] Here's also a press release of some type: [14]

I don't understand when people do things like this. They fall right into the hands of their enemies by doing exactly what their enemies accuse them of doing: denying free speech. Jtpaladin 17:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the site hasn't been down for a few days; this is the first day the "There is no website configured at this address." message has appeared. Stormfront was the subject of a DDoS attack about a week ago; that press release was regarding that. Not sure about the Richard Warman thing though.

--Ryodox 18:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It says "Stormfront is temporarily unavailable." for me... Romulasry 22:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I checked a few minutes ago and they are up again. Jtpaladin 02:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the second time in a couple weeks. Stick to the Facts 04:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

When will people get it in their mind that when some idiot takes Storm Front off-line, it merely contributes to demonstrating the point that there is a "Jewish conspiracy" to keep the truth about the Holocaust and other related issues away from the public? Whoever is doing that crap needs to stop and wake up to the damage they are doing to those of us who are trying to combat these issues on any level. Jtpaladin 00:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

I'm a brand spanking new Wiki user, and I'd like to cut my teeth on a few articles, this being one of them. I figure I'll start with something simple, so here goes...

I'd like to propose the following change to this sentence:

The articles posted there often denounce non-white immigration and strongly advocate such views as white nationalism, white separatism, nazism, anti-Semitism, anti-Arabism and homophobia, and such feelings as white pride.

to

The articles posted there often denounce non-white immigration to European nations (including some of their former colonies) and advocate such views as white nationalism, white separatism, nazism, anti-Semitism, anti-Islam and homophobia, and such feelings as white pride.

My reasoning is as follows:

1.) I seriously doubt Stormfront denounces non-white immigration in general.

2.) Arabs are a semetic people, to state both anti-Semitism and anti-Arabism is redundant. If you want to get the point across that they are both anti-Jew and anti-Arab, then changing Arabism to Islam works just as well.

Skallagrimsson 09:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I am a member at stormfront, and i have no problem with Jews. Jews and Arabs are White in my opinion. ---CSArebel---

Regarding argument 1, I agree. I doubt whether they oppose black immigration to Mali of black South-Africans. Or Surinamese immigrating to Cambodia. Or Iranians immigrating to Saudi-Arabia.

There we get that silly argument again. (Argument 2, that is.) Yes, Arabs are Semites. No, anti-Semitism does not refer to hatred of Arabs, it refers only to hatred of Jews. Yes, this is difficult to understand for some people. Yes, this is the way it is. Get it? --217.132.130.193 13:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember years ago when I was a member of the Student Council at my University. The Palestinian group wanted to use student funds to hold an event which I clearly suspected of including anti-Israeli crap. I was one of two people that fought to keep these people from getting a cent. One member of the Student Council said that the Palestinian group was engaging in anti-Semitic behavior, where upon the "Palestinian" yelled that Arabs are Semites as well. Since that day, I don't argue when Semites are considered both Jews and Arabs. So, the word anti-Semitism should be removed and "anti-Zionist" or "anti-Jewish" used instead. In fact, the word anti-Semitism should cease being used altogether because it is far too broad a term to describe a group. I always laugh when people insist that "Orientals" should be called "Asian". Asia is a big continent that includes various peoples. Even funnier is when Chinese and other Orientals from the Orient refer to themselves as Oriental while only the newest generation of Chinese, Japanese, etc. call themselves "Asian". Jtpaladin 00:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"Martin Luther King" website

Is the "MLK" site actually needed for any propose? Perhaps there should be something saying that it's a racist link? 71.251.20.195 07:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Everything with you people is "racist". wake up these are facts. ---CSArebel---

Sure, it makes perfect sense! Why read our history books when we can learn all we need to know about Martin Luther King from listening to some crazy nazi-loving bastard over the internet? Seriously, martinlutherking.com is a conduit to which Duke & Black voice there racist opinions, not just on MLK, no! They take there angst out on every thing Afr.American, they even go on to claim that EVERY SINGLE invention made with black hands was accually made by a white person "who the history books don't want you to know about". Please...

69.250.130.215 23:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The only way to say that the "MLK" website is racist is if in fact somewhere in that website they say, "We hate Black people" or if they make statements spewing hate against Black people. I looked over the site and didn't find anything like that. Yes, they use various sources to attack MLK but that doesn't qualify the site as racist. People forget that MLK was no saint. He was an ordinary guy who wanted equal rights for Black people and had the same human frailties that we all have. The guy committed adultery, his doctorate thesis was plagerized, and according to Robert and John Kennedy, he had communists in his organization. The website in question simply makes that info public. Jtpaladin 16:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As I stated in my responce to the above comment, this website IS most certainly racist. A webmaster need not directly state that they hate black people for it to qualify as a hate site. A general disrespect for or animalization of Afr.Americans would also be concidered racist, which is exactly what this website aims to do. Concidering that the very same people who webmaster this site also own a white-supremisist forum, I think i'll take my chances with more reliable sources...

69.250.130.215 23:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be mentioned that there is a section(subforum) on Stormfront itself regarding Martin Luther King, which I have to say definitely is racist, selfproclaimed racist even, and also it strongly discriminates between different facts, only accepting certain ones when they help the Stormfront viewpoints. Lezwyn 22:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be moved to whom ever created its own wiki page, as it sounds like a secondary interest and not directly connected, keep the stormfront page clean and understandable Unless there is an objection I will move it april 22 2007 Rdouc 23:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Landover Baptist Church and Stormfront

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landover_Baptist_Church

Landover Baptist Church is a parody, run by a hard-core Atheist, to make Christains look like fools.

Stormfront is a less obvious parody, run by hard-core leftists, to make Conservatives look like fools.

Both organizations, ideologically identical, use exactly the same tactics. They hide information on their organizers, heavilly moderate their forums, they are deceivers, and they rely on conspiracy theories. Wuggsy 06:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely untrue. Storm front is a legitimate racist website run by legitimate racist Don Black.Wikidudeman 14:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Redundant Don Black quote

On a more nitpicky note, this Don Black quote: "We want to take America back. We know a multicultural Yugoslav nation can't hold up for too long. Whites won't have any choice but to take military action." occurs twice in this article. One of these should be removed, but I haven't yet decided which one. Anyone have a strong opinion on this? Acornwithwings 22:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)