Talk:Stormfront (website)/Archive 2

message: I don't think that claim by ADL is true, at least not any more. ADL claims "A subtler, though equally virulent anti-Semitism pervades the Bamboo Delight Web site. Hosted by Blac"
It's unclear where the information is derived from. Maybe from IP/whois record, maybe somebody's allegations (it's claimed in the article that mr Black avoided or did not consider necessary to claim credit himself).
"Beyond his additions to Stormfront, Black has begun to help other white supremacists by hosting their sites without publicly admitting that he is doing so. Unlike sites such as The Truth at Last or White Nationalist News Agency, which are housed by Black and are in effect part of Stormfront, it is not readily apparent that he services these other sites."
At least as it is now, sites which DB is actually (provably) hosting have common IP range and similar whois record:
*stormfront.org: 
**IP Address:  	 70.85.161.7
**IP Location: 	United States - Texas - Dallas - Theplanet.com Internet Services Inc
*martinlutherking.org
**IP Address:  	 70.86.202.126
**IP Location: 	United States - Texas - Dallas - Theplanet.com Internet Services Inc
*solargeneral.com
**IP Address:  	 70.86.202.116
**IP Location: 	United States - Texas - Dallas - Theplanet.com Internet Services Inc
And there's Don Black and Stormfront and Florida address in whois details
bamboo delight is totally different:
*IP Address:  	 216.169.145.200
*IP Location: 	United States - Maryland - Easton - Internet Connection
and in details
  Registrant:
  Bamboo Delight Company
  PO BOX 2792
  Saratoga, CA 95070-0792
  US
  Domain Name: BAMBOO-DELIGHT.COM
  Administrative Contact:
   Bamboo Delight Company
   Delaney, Gregory
   PO BOX 2792
   Saratoga, CA 95070-0792
   US
   408-236-2128
   http://www.emailaddressprotection.com [email]
  Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
   Bamboo Delight Company
   Delaney, Gregory
   PO BOX 2792
   Saratoga, CA 95070-0792
   US
   (408) 236-2128
   http://www.emailaddressprotection.com [email]
so it appears to me that ADL as often doesn't know what it's talking about. Or maybe things have changed a lot since then. It's difficult to tell as they don't provide the rationale for attributing the site to Don Black. I'll remove bamboodelight passage as non-factual at the current moment (or at all).--Poison sf 22:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bamboo delight etc 

message: Looks like the entire controversies section was pulled out by an anonymous editor.  I don't see discussion of this here.  I'm putting the entire thing back in for now.  Friday (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing controversies 

message: Let there be no question in your minds, my friends, that the most recent thread I found DIRECTLY ADVOCATES genocide (aka 'ethnic cleansing')  I have provided above the legal definition of 'genocide' as used in internation and US statutes.  The discussion fits.  The possible penalty is the death penalty.  (I'm not saying the DISCUSSION is criminal (although it might be in the US and definitely is in some countries) but the activity discussed clearly is.)  In case you don't scroll up, this includes moving populations and forcing or coercing the movement of populations - it doesn't necessarily involve murdering anyone.
This stays in unless 1) a wiki admin demands that it be taken out, at which time I will leave it out while I pursue an appeal of the decision to the highest wiki authority 2) the statutes change and it is no longer illegal (lots of luck with that one) or 3) the threads are removed.  Even though they are cached by google for all eternity, with your identities a single subpoena away, I will remove the entry here if you remove them from your site.  Thanks a bunch, Stick to the Facts 06:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Ethnic cleansing/death penalty  

message: Let's try to stick with the Wiki rules about cited material (among other things).  Stick to the Facts 15:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repairing more vandalism 

message: I tend to agree that the disputed text isn't particularly NPOV, in its current form.  For starters-- talking about the site based on six votes in a forum poll just isn't notable, reliable, etc.  It sucks that some people on the site support ethnic cleansing, but it's still just six votes (not even six people necessarily).   
As I've noted elsewhere in this discussion - the entire theme of the stormfront site is genocide based.  The entire concept of a "White Nation" created by ejecting minorities inherently involves genocide under the statutory definition, which is the only definition that counts because I am specifically referring to the legality of it.  The nazi themes and avatars etc and the fact that the site is perfuse with discussion of population removal and plans for creating a "white nation" make this the single most pervasive element of the site.  it is not merely a few votes on a poll, but if you insist on taking the poll out thats fine.  i believe the rest of the content should remain, however.  Stick to the Facts 20:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just out of curiosity - and where do you see any decision by "moderator" in these issues? Are you referring to comments by Brimba? I don't know if he's a moderator (I have no idea how to check and he didn't directly say he's moderator/administrator or however this is called on wikipedia). Assuming that he is, he didn't really make any "decisions", at least I didn't notice. He reminded about 3RR rule and warned about deleting sourced material. However, the dispute is not about deleting, but about fairly presenting facts and claims and balancing their weight. I don't think that anything essential was deleted. Lastly, as far as I know, being an administrator on wikipedia doesn't mean one has an absolute upper hand in resolving disputes. It still has to be done by consensus and by interpreting wikipedia policies... AFAIK. Poison sf 20:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My two cents

message: To demonstrate how criticism is quashed, here is all of the criticism of stormfront in the article as it currently stands:
"However, critics often label it as Neo-Nazi and accuse it of promoting racism.[2][3][4][5][6]. " 
This isn't criticism at all.  It says that the webmaster is a self described 'racialist' and it indicates that the threads include pro-nazi content.  Further down the site defines itself as racialist.  This is just another plug for the same content made up to look like criticism.
"Stormfront has been listed as a hate site, and a number of internet content filters prevent access to it for that reason."
I think Stormfront caters to this crowd and wouldn't appear to be criticism to would-be consumers at all.  But aside from that, it sounds more like a condemnation of those who filter the content and judge it as a hate site.  Extremely weak criticism at best.
"advocacy, as well as critique, of Nazism"
I'm not sure if this is supposed to be criticism or not but either way it is EXTREMELY biased they way it is written.  The pro-nazism posts probably outnumber the anti-nazism posts by 20:1.  And that isn't even factoring in all of the avatars that use swastikas etc.
The 'controversies' section is extremely unbalanced and biased and it reads more as if to demonstrate the tribulations that SF soldiers have to endure to fight the 'censorship' of the 'jewish-controlled government and media'.  
Then, there's this - buried all the way at the bottom:
"Critics of Stormfront accuse its members of supporting violence, genocide, and ethnic cleansing.[46] [47] [48] [49]. [citation needed]"
Weak.    Stick to the Facts 20:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You were already told that there can actually be ground for deleting that altogether. I've personally not advocated that so far and, in the interests of neutrality, offered this as a compromise version in the very beginning. However, you can't use personal research like "pro-nazism posts outnumber anti-nazism posts by 20:1". You need to attribute that to some notable source. Cherry picking material is also not allowed. Already just selecting threads on your own without some VERY formal and clear criteria is original researcch (instead of quoting third party source which mentioned these threads). Going further than that and being clearly biased and one-sided in this (and using hand-crafted statistisc like the afore-mentioned 20:1) is even more of an insult.  Actually, if you weren't wasting your time on trying to unproductively damage the article and disregard Wikipedia policies, I think you could have found already some non-OR material to put there. Poison sf 20:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We'll see what the admins think.  Stick to the Facts 21:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I think that's a pretty straightforward violation of the Wikipedia policy on meat puppets.  Anyone involved in that discussion should give that policy a very close read and be sure to comply with it in the future.  Soliciting editors from the website being discussed is MOST inappropriate.  --Alecmconroy 21:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pleased that you agree.  Stick to the Facts 03:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism of Stormfront in wiki article 

message: The term "holocaust denial", applied as a blanket label to any discussion of the holocaust that doesn't blindly endorse the dogma, is what wikipedia would call weasel words.  There are many threads on Stormfront in which the Holocaust is discussed.  These threads generally consist of questions and discussions of research to prove or disprove statistical claims.  Unlike most venues where such questioning of dogma is severely if not completely silenced, Stormfront allows the discussion of THIS topic as well as almost anything else.  
Attempts to describe a thread that discusses the Holocaust as a "holocaust denial" thread is blatantly slanted, even if for no other reason than use of the expression implies that there can be no discussion.  Either that, or it implies that there are only two types of people: those who believe everything written about the holocaust is 100% true beyond question and those who believe none of it.  It's a shamefully simplistic and anti-intellectual position to take, but I'm hardly surprised.
: Or it could be that while there is much important research done on the Holocaust, and many facts that are probably lost forever due to the combined effects of Nazi secrecy, Allied attacks, and time, there is a core set of facts that have been very well established. Furthermore, those people who challenge those facts, like David Irving, have a, shall we say, statistical tendency to hold extreme positions about the Jews, about the Nazis, and in many cases white supremecy.--Prosfilaes 03:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Holocaust Denial" 

message: Added AfD tag.  Uncovered massive evidence of sock/meat puppetry vandalism.  Stick to the Facts 02:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD 

message: I believe the sentence in the first paragraph see title of this section) calls for a rebuttal.  The site is perfused with threads and messages that clearly demonstrate that this prohibition is not enforced.  If Tony Soprano circulated a memo saying 'under no circumstances are any of you to kill anyone' would it be taken seriously?  I think a rebuttal demontrating countless violations of this policy is merited, and I provided one in the last version which was edited out.  I offered many different versions of this and they were all instantly scrapped with no valid explanation.  I would either like to put it back in or discuss alternatives.  Stick to the Facts 17:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your addition was original research, so it was removed. That passage only notes the official claim, it does not imply that this claim is true. El_C 21:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  alleged prohibition of advocacy or suggestion of illegal activity 

message: I haven't seen a good reason given for why the AfD tag was removed after only a few hours.  Most of the votes were in favor of deleting it.  Stick to the Facts 17:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I closed it early for the reasons stated. El_C 21:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  early removal of AfD tag 

message: I won't include it myself, lest I upset the edit ceasefire, but I notice the article doesn't include the fact that the KKK founder of the Stormfront spent time in prison for attempted an armed overthrow of the government of Dominica, where he planned to set up some sort of white nationalist dictatorship.   It's slightly tangential, but it might merit a mention, given that Storm claims it's dedicated to on-violence, despite its founder having planned a violent overthrow of a small government. 
In general though, the article looks really  good to me.  (Setting aside, of course, the blanket prohibition of referencing hate sites, which is more of a meta-discussion, rather than specific to this article.) 
--Alecmconroy 00:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's clearly worthy of inclusion. Can you cite a reliable source so that we can verify it is a "fact" ? El_C 00:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How bout this USA Today story? --Alecmconroy 00:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. El_C 01:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting criticism that might should be included

message: Putting 'controversial' makes a bad phrase worse.  The word 'prominent' should come out too.  How is it 'controverial?'  The only thing it's ever done was make prank phone calls to a local tv informal viewer's poll.  Oh ya, and they tried (unsuccessfully) to take over control of the wiki article about them.  
How is it "prominent?"  Is William Hung a "prominent" musician?  I guarantee you that 100X more people have heard of him than SF.  I think both words should come out.  Stick to the Facts 04:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  misc