Talk:Stormfront (website)/Archive 4

message: I almost forgot to add fascists to that list. 75.189.77.35 23:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: You have a fascist racist irrational generally stupid site like this, but you don't have Che-Lives (http://www.che-lives.com) or Revolutionaryleft (http://revleft.com).  
You people need to get your priorities straight. 
Anyway, hope you enjoy your promotion of racist irrational hate.  Fascists aren't welcome where I'm from, neither should they be here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.232.51.243 (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional or political site. It is here to provide information about notable topics. Stormfront is notable.  If Che-Lives or Revolutionaryleft are notable, then they should have Wikipedia pages.  Acornwithwings 00:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  WOW, what rational! I suppose while were at it, we should delete the holocaust page. After all, we would'nt want to be promoting mass genocide, now would we? Dumbf**k, your makeing anti-racists look bad.
69.250.130.215 15:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the fuck is this on Wikipedia? 

message: I made several small edits to more properly refect storm front in a neutral light, why where my edits removed, All my edits brought the page into a more neutral setting or updated there claimed member ship at this time, as that is what wikipedia is about "a neutral resource for information", I even spent some time viewing the site just to find out where the users stand on there views towards several subjects Rdouc 00:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Jayjg (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's a simple example. Critics describe it as neo-Nazi; the don't describe "wrongly as neo-Nazi". Wikipedia doesn't decide whether the critics are right or wrong. Jayjg (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: thats true, thats why the caption is writen the way it is : wrongly described as "neo-nazi's" not " wrongly described as neo-nazi's " Rdouc 01:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:NPOV, we just repeat what the sources say; we don't characterize them as "wrong". Jayjg (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll leave the 'wrongly ' out of the conversation for now then, what about my other changes that you have removed ? it seems to me that you are flat out tossing my edits out, still with out giving reasoning for most of them, you have an avg of 32 edits a day you should understand what I'm asking and why, But if your stead fast on removeing all my edits with out explaining why then thats not in line with the 'policys' as I read them,:I may not know how they come into play ( the policys ) yet, but I do know what they say ( basicly ), And you are not following them, I'm not trying to change the truth of the page so much as to bring it into line with the NPOV as I have said several times at this point, On another note are you going to answer this question or am I just an annoying 'newb ' to you who is not worth teaching ? you joined in 2003 and have nearly 47,000 edits, teach me so that I may learn Rdouc 01:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources describe it as a Neo-Nazi website, so it is included in that category. There is no "White Nationalist website" category, and even if there were, there aren't any reliable sources that describe it as a  "White Nationalist website". Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  The users of 'storm front' do not count as being a source for information ?? really now it seems that you have a non-objective view on the matter, also that does not answer why you removed all the edits, might I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting, Maybe you can help me understand what part of this you ARE following, So I may learn from you Rdouc 03:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The category is not meant to be based on how members' describe their site, but rather, it draws from the description of reliable sources. El_C 05:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I can except that more so, but there are news papers refrenced as sources, they are Notoriously biased towards what ever there editor feels, as well as what ever will sell a paper, Thank you for educating me on that point, as i read it, as long as it is "writen" and not by the subject it self Rdouc 00:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it is a verifiable claim written in a reliable source. Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits removed 

message: I've removed some things due to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - I'm sure that these things can be sourced if you actually try, but until then, please stop adding them. I've also added a POV tag to the "extension of views" section. Yes, it may be obvious to most readers that the site is negative in tone and whatnot, but unless it can be sourced with a secondary source, you shouldn't be adding subjective judgments of the website. Has any secondary source ever published anything about the MLK site? Should it be here at all? --- RockMFR 02:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV, sourcing 

message: This website supports genoocide of "non white" races. I think this should be made clear on the article, because the article comes across as the site just "celebrating their heritage" when really, they wish the Jews and blacks were dead. All one has to do is look thru their posts. 
See this post, for example. 
www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=4162470&postcount=73
The article should reflect the real content of the site. Oh, and the fact its founders went to JAIL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.106.69.186 (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I agree that wikipedian tend to go too soft of stormfront as a hate site, the comment that you linked to is made by a regular forum member so it would make little sense to say that it offically support genocide. Perhaps a better exapmle would come from a admins comment, god knows they've said some sh*t.   69.250.130.215 20:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SUPPORTS GENOCIDE 

message: Apparently the previous image was deleted. If a fair use or free version is avaliable, maybe someone should download one.--Sefringle 02:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've uploaded a logo image, this time with a fair-use rationale. -- Grandpafootsoldier 01:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo image

message: I think this article should include Stormfront's own definition of who is White and who is not.
--Anonymous
:If you can source it, you are more than welcome to add it.--sefringleTalk 21:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's something although it might not qualify as official: www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/super-white-358429.html
Slow Motion, Quick Thinking 02:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stormfront Definition of White 

message: I think that if this article is considered one sided, it is probably because there are no "positive" references that are neutral. 
I actually don't really have a problem with the article as it stands. Nor would I have a problem if someone can find a neutral positive article to reference it. Anyway, -- I ate jelly -- 11:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find some articles about Stormfront that describe it in positive terms, well then just show us here. But honestly, I don't give a shit if white nationalists are called NAZIs. Because frankly, I hate them both. White nationalism is a racist fucked up illogical, irrational idea just as much as any other racist idea. Just from looking at the introduction, it seems quite neutral. It doesn't label the website as anything but "white pride" and "white nationalist" (something that the website calls itself...). The rest of the introduction what critics call it, with references. The introduction is NPOV. The rest of it is criticism. And so long as each criticism is phrased in the third person with a reference, it is acceptable. Anyway, I still think that it is a fucked up website. -- I ate jelly -- 14:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well no doubt, I dont like the site either. Does that mean we should have a biased wikipedia? This is an increasing problem. I can easily find articles that are pro-stormfront or pro-white nationalism. I will make an update later. SenseOnes 20:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  good oh, if you can find articles that are pro-stormfront or white nationalism (and that are "neutral", if you know what I mean...), then feel free to add relevant information to the article. :) -- I ate jelly -- 11:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Some of those posts are actually opposing views (as they have a debate section). The difference between U.S. and their "community" is that their "community" is almost all neo-nazis. Most U.S. citizens (at least today), for the most part, are opposed to nazism, or at least they say they are (that said, racism still is a big problem, but I don't need to address that). The website was founded by an ex member of the Klu Klux Klan. What do you think that says about their views? It's not like he suddenly became an ex-racist. The dufference between white supremacy and white nationalism is not distinct; in fact, it is a very fine line, and in my opinion, both are racist views. I don't really see the difference, as their goals, and the reasons behind them, are pretty similar.--SefringleTalk 05:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One sided?  

message: This article is one of the most disgustingly biased in existence on wikipedia. And what's worse is it's allowed to be. A complete re-write is in order.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.98.144 (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not really biased in it's current shape. It is very small and has been reduced to almost nothing. There aren't any neutrual sources to use. The article should simply present biased sources in an accurate light. This means mentioning it's history, role and status in the WN movement, and how anti racists have responded.Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep  —Preceding comment was added at 21:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hah! 

message: Okay, some topics defy neutrality. So, Wikipedia should have two sections - one for the nay-sayers and one for the yea-sayers. This would solve the neutrality problem. 
Edit wars could be solved by tagging editors with an either/or status - meaning the same person could only edit one section, not both. Of course, any measure of decorum will have loopholes, but then it will become obvious over time who the real "hate-mongers" are by the edit changes. 
Doesn't it all boil down to - who is hating who here? Are the white-pride people hating the non-whites? Or are the anti-whites hating the white-priders? Just let everyone have their say - WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL HERE?
Sixftblonde (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can protray them neutrally. I think yuo just said we should do what I suggested. You might wanna change the name it sounds like your a neo nazi.YVNP (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral = Pro + Con 

message: Isn't there a policy against the home page of this site being in the external links or something? I thought there was a policy against links to hate sites in wikipedia articles. I noticed some other articles that have the home page to hate sites as well. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Home page in external links