Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:16, 30 January 2008

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Websites: Computing This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Discrimination This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives

Archive 2005 Archive 2006 Archive3 (Including comments from 2006 up to Feb 2007) Archive4

Context and specification

Per this request by P4k, I will explain what I meant by those tags. The latter, a request for specification, was directed at the phrase "join the military", where no specific military outfit was identified. As regards context needed for the hosting of Mein Kampf on the website, this factoid appeared one line into a section entitled "Views" without explanation. No relation between the views of Stormfront and Mein Kampf or its author is made explicit, and the reader is left to join the dots themselves. I think placing this text without context as to why it is relevant to Stormfront's views, cited from a reliable source, constitutes an insidious attempt at smearing the website with guilt by association. Regards, Skomorokh 01:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Re the military: I don't think the sources or original discussions specify a particular outfit either, so there's no way Misplaced Pages can. Re Mein Kampf: let me think about it.P4k (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

After checking the source, they do specify the USM, so I have specified as such in the article. Skomorokh 18:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence about Mein Kampf, which is backed up by a reference, reads: "Stormfront hosts an online copy of Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf which is preceded by a description of Hitler as someone who "refused to surrender"." That looks straightforward to me, and don't see any dots that need to be connected. The sentence is appropriate for the Views section. Spylab (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I don't really see what's "insidious" about this. The relevance to their views seems obvious to me, what kind of additional insight could a reliable source offer?P4k (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Mein Kampf statement is true, but is not put in any sort of context, leaving the reader with no substantial understanding of the connection between SF and Hitler. The statement informs the reader about the epistemological position of Stormfront, namely the fact, uncontroversially agreed upon by the majority of mainstream historians, that Adolf Hitler refused to surrender in WW2. Should we also report on the adherence of Stormfront to the theory that the Earth is not flat, or that elephants are mammals, or that the sun emits light? Why should the endorsement of Stormfront of a perfectly uncontroversial epistemological statement deserve mention in its Misplaced Pages article?

The answer is, I think, without assuming bad faith on the part of any individual editor, that the mere connection of SF and Hitler/Mein Kampf induces the reader to infer notions about the values and not simply the epistemological stance of SF. Hitler=evil...Stormfront=related to Hitler...Stormfront=evil.

Unless editors can find something beyond mere support for consensus historical perspective in the stated views of the Stormfront organization, the Hitler/Mein Kampf relation too Stormfront is entirely trivial. I am removing the reference until such evidence is forthcoming. Regards, Skomorokh 18:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

the mere connection of SF and Hitler/Mein Kampf induces the reader to infer notions about the values and not simply the epistemological stance of SF. Hitler=evil...Stormfront=related to Hitler...Stormfront=evil.

Yeah, what is wrong with this? The fact that they choose to host the text, along with the fact that they're white supremacists, suggests that they're sympathetic toward it. In the context of the page and the site itself the fact that Hitler didn't surrender is obviously cited admiringly, not as some historical factoid they thought visitors might be interested in. I don't know, I really just don't get your argument here I guess, but if you don't want the sentence there that's fine, I can't claim it adds a lot to the article.P4k (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's just like, your opinion, man. I agree, I guess that they probably approve of Hitler/Mein Kampf. But until there's an unbiased reliable source that says so, it really is irrelevant how you or I interpret that. I appreciate your magnanimity. Skomorokh 22:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Stormfront FAQ

Somewhat related to the Mein Kampf discussion above, I am wondering if we should treat this "White Nationalist FAQ" as representative of Stormfronts views. I can't seem to find any mission statement of the organization itself, but I am wary about attributing views to Stormfont they may not in fact espouse. It's very clear that with such a controversial topic and an article fraught with bias, we need a reliable source for the organizations views, so that we can present them alongside the views of their critics. At the very least, a reliably sourced defense of Stormfront would be helpful. Any ideas? Skomorokh 18:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is the same as Mein Kampf. The fact that they host it suggests some level of endorsement, but we can't really say any more about it than the fact that they host it. Since it's written by an individual author we can't take it as expressing "Stormfront's views." How do you think the article is biased, and why do you think it needs a defense of Stormfront?P4k (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is biased in terms of WP:WEIGHT; it's just a scattered collection of one-liners from various sources that give a very incomplete look at a website. My problems are basically with what's not in the article rather than what is, at this stage. Hence the desire to find further sources of content. If we are to maintain a neutral point of view, we cannot simply publish an attack on an organization without publishing the response - no respectable newspaper or academic article would print a one-sided polemic, so neither should we. Skomorokh 22:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. This is "a scattered collection of one-liners" but so are most wikipedia articles. I don't think this article is anything close to a one-sided polemic, but my interest in keeping this article npov is not that great in any case, so I probably shouldn't have initiated this discussion in the first place.P4k (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Another attack on White Conservative Ideals

Why is there a negative attitude towards White Nationalism but not Black Nationalism or the Mexica Movement. This article was stereotypical and generalized. There is always some extremes with topics like this, but that does not mean every viewpoint on the site is this extreme.

I like the revisions (not to be mistaken with Revisionism). A cursory review by the average person does really lead one to believe that it is a white supremacist website, because a large number of members adhere to that doctrine. However, the site, is for white pride, which is far different. Now admittedly, there is a slippery slope between pride and power, but if we are to be accurate, it's a white pride website, regardless of the number of extremist users. the_undertow 00:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It is white supremacy. That is what the sources say. The difference between white pride and power is very minimul. The users are not extremists. Secondly, Black, Mexican, and white nationalism are not the same. Only white nationalism is racist, as it is white supremacy in disguise. Yahel Guhan 01:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Because only European-descended people are racist.... Koalorka (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

All nationalism is, and should be treated as the same. Either all nationalism is racist or none of it is. I'm not buying that I can't be white pride without being white power. Racism is not inherent to any one race. This is another example of political correctness going awry. the_undertow 02:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not that simple. Racism can occur in all races, but not all racism is the same, nor is nationalism. Some nationalism is racist, but other nationalism is not. Nationalism is not racist in itself. White nationalism is segregation at best, supremacism more often, both racist ideals. Yahel Guhan 03:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to engage in any further lawyering. This is a page about the article - the article of the encyclopedia. If you want to explore the slippery slope of racism, you'll have to find another forum - as this one requires sources and no original research. the_undertow 03:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Snarkie

The article says Doug Hanks posted 4,000 posts as 'Snarkie', but when I head over to Stormfront.org and check the members list, it says that name was only registered in 2006 and with zero posts.

What gives? Can this Wiki article still be factually correct?

--213.118.143.154 (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for catching that; the reference does not mention the word "Snarkie", so I've removed it from the article. Skomorokh 20:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is going on with this "blog" thing?

"even reliable sources contain blogs." Wtf does this mean?P4k (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't say, but apparently The undertow feels that while blogs are reliable in the body of the article, they are not for the lede. Looking at the links in question, I fail to see how or are unreliable, or even blogs. As for , it is archived on Stormfont.org (possibly misrepresented/altered) and from a local newspaper, so it might reasonably be questioned. Skomorokh 22:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In general I think blogs are unreliable period, but those aren't blogs.P4k (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ref 3, with assertions like But it is becoming clear that any attempt to curb the right to free speech here will be met with fierce resistance. reads just like a blog. This is why it's called Breakfast News - it is just observational blogging. 5 isn't very reliable because it's one site posting info from another. It's not 3rd party, and probably some copyvio, not that it matters, we don't really need to double-up on sourcing. And when asked what the fuck I was saying about blogs, I was pointing out that newspapers, which are reliable sources, for example, contain editorials and reader's letters, which are not reliable just because of their association. the_undertow 01:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: I've posted this question to the reliable sources noticeboard. Skomorokh 02:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Responding from RS noticeboard... Actually, these are not "blog" postings... they are news reports posted on the website of legitimate mainstream news outlets. There is a difference. These reports are reliable sources no different than if they appeared on the television broadcast (in fact, they often are little more than typed up versions of television broadcasts) or in a print newspaper. Now, some media websites do have blogs... these are regular commontary peices that are the web equivalent to Op-Ed pieces appearing in major newspapers. In those cases, the news orgainization is acting as the publisher of the regularly posting author's opinion. Such postings would be reliable for statements as to the opinion of the author, but not for statements of fact. As for the NYT article also mentioned on the RS noticeboard... why use a third party?... better to use the NY Times article itself. Blueboar (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

White supremacy

At least five sources currently mention that this website is white supremacist. User:The undertow, what is your problem with stating this fact? Denying this is clearly undue weight. Yahel Guhan 04:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My problem is that these are not reliable, third party sources. If you want to say that the ADL considers them as such, so be it. But you are using opinions as facts. the_undertow 04:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

and SPLC, both of which are reliable sources. Lets not give undue weight to those who don't agree. It is widely recognized as being white supremacist. Yahel Guhan 04:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right, so when you call it 'white supremacy' then cite those of the opinion (recognition is this case is not fact) as per above. If not, you cannot use those sources as stating facts. Just because something is widely recognized as X, does not make it X. the_undertow 04:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally using 6 sources for one sentence is ridiculous and could be construed as obsessive. the_undertow 04:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There are now 7 sources for it (and more could probably easily be found if necessary). The sources are necessary, because there are people like you, who seem to be in denial that stormfront actually is a white supremacist website. There really isn't any real doubt that the website is white supremacist. That denial should not be given undue weight in the article, as not recognizing it as fact would do. It isn't like there are any sources saying it is not a white supremacist website. Yahel Guhan 04:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to prove that something 'is not.' Since you are having such fun editing, why don't you just pick the top 3 sources instead of being pointy by adding more than is acceptable. the_undertow 04:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

On second thought your comment Only white nationalism is racist, as it is white supremacy in disguise indicates that there is no way for you to be neutral here. You may want to consider that. the_undertow 05:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Pointy? I added 5 reliable sources that state stormfront is a white supremacist website, and that is somehow Pointy? Besides, if I remove them, someone will surely come back to deny that it is a white supremacist website again. Why are having all those sources which verify that it is a white supremacist website "unacceptable"? If there are no sources that say it is not, it is a fringe view that should not be given undue weight. Why is it just a "widely believed opinion," when so many sources state it as fact, and no source denys it as a fact? OK, so my views on white supremacy therefore mean my opinion is discredited? I think your comment on white nationalism means that you are not neutral on this either. OK, I have an opionin on the topic. I won't lie. We all do, else we probably wouldn't be editing the page. I base my opinion in this case on what the sources say. Yahel Guhan 05:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I kind of spazzed out yesterday but you could make a case for calling them "white nationalist" rather than "white supremacist"--it seems like that's what the more reliable sources on google books do.P4k (talk) 08:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yahel has made it clear he believes that white nationalism is a conspiracy to hide racism. Black, Mexican, and white nationalism are not the same. Only white nationalism is racist, as it is white supremacy in disguise. Since this is about a website that promites white pride, its motto "White Pride World Wide," not "White Power World Wide" then Yahel is has an agenda here, because white pride and white power are the same, according to his own words. Furthermore, you (Yahel) think that white nationalism is racist, period: Nationalism is not racist in itself. White nationalism is segregation at best, supremacism more often, both racist ideals. These are clearly the views of someone who has an agenda to push, besides sounding like one giant conspiracy advocate. You can't say that white pride is different from any other pride without being a POV pusher. And compounded by your editing habits, it is more than obvious you have an agenda. I would no more expect you to edit this article than for a revisionist to be at the Holocaust entry. As far as my comment - I asserted that white pride and white power are different. That is backed up by the two distinct articles as well. Maybe you should move to have them merged. This is most certainly going to end up at mediation if you do not look for some sort of consensus on this topic. It's clearly a COI for you to be here. the_undertow 21:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly what Yahel makes it seem like. I would wager to say that Mr. Yahel is of the Semitic persuasion or just very biased. Either way you only reinforce the stereotypes you try to claim to want to abolish. Self-hate and anti-white/European bigotry. Koalorka (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, mind WP:NPA. Second, I will admit it. I have a bias toward racism; I oppose racism. If that makes me bias toward racism, so be it. Does that mean I should not edit anything related to racism? Of corse not. Just like Christians shouldn't be banned from editing Christianity articles, or Jews from Judaism articles, or Black people from African American related articles. Banning everyone from topics they have a bias on will do nothing for this encyclopedia, and that is why it isn't part of the rules to editing. That is just rediculoius. Since you claim I have an agenda here, I will tell you what my real agenda here is: to improve this article, to source it, and to not let white supremacists vandalize it by removing all legitimate and well doccumented criticism, for which the website is notable for. While I do believe white power and pride are the same, both terms are notable, and I see no reason to believe a merge would be necessary.I think it is just as much a COI for you to be here as it is for me to be here, as you are also clearly bias on this topic. I don't see what is to mediate if no sources are provided that present another view. To Koalorka, no I am not anti-white. However, I am against racism by white people. Yahel Guhan 02:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, I normally don't get drawn into these types of debates, it certainly doesn't seem that way. It appears that being Jewish yourself you have chosen to eradicate any pro-European, pro-white pride by marginalizing and dismissing racially aware European-descended individuals as unevolved bigots. StormFront makes it explicitly clear that they're sole intention is primarily the preservation of their perceived "race", although some members do hold extremist views, they are not in the majority or endorsed. Now if you fought so passionately to label say the Nation of Islam or Black Panther Party as racially-motivated and violently anti-white organizations, whose leaders have even advocated the extermination of a racial group (possibly whites?) then your intentions would not be questioned. It seems that you are a strongly prejudiced, anti-white bigot. But that's acceptable these days, right? Koalorka (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Websites articles
• Unknown-importance Websites articles
• Unassessed Websites articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Websites articles
• Unassessed Discrimination articles
• Unknown-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• Old requests for peer review