Talk:Stormfront (website)

Original Research

In the Controversies section:

"A link to the poll was posted on Stormfront and messages subsequently posted there implied that a mass of readers had duly voted in order to skew the poll in favor of segregation."

The source does not mention a link to the poll, or the intention to imply that a mass of readers had duly voted. It seems to be OR. Achinoam (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Violet Jones

I'd be surprised if she meets our criteria for notability (which does not mean she isn't a WP:RS.[1] So, no red link now. Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'd be surprised too. She is an associate professor that doesn't seem to meet WP:SCHOLAR. Ditto with Harris.Niteshift36 (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

POV

This article seems strongly biased. It's as if the Coke article was mostly sourced from anti soft drink organizations. WP:BIASED recommends to at least use quotes if a source seems biased. I think that at least some other editors agree that it looks biased. I gather that from the fact that so many sources are given for the first three adjectives: it means that people contest them. Politics, philosophy, religions are topics where people strongly take side and opinions shouldn't be turned into absolute truths. For example, the source http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2005/summer/electronic-storm uses acerbic and sarcastic language which suggests that it's not a neutral source (it doesn't mean it's invalid). In particular, the line "Details of yet another nefarious Jewish conspiracy" is sarcastic unless the splcenter suggests that there are actually nefarious Jewish conspiracies.Ne Yorker (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain in what way you think the article is biased. Your only example is that the SPLC is used as a source. But that is actually a issue of reliable sourcing. TFD (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

At least some of the sources are ideological opponents. SPLC, Anti-Defamation League, Jewish Journal, activist Raphael Cohen-Almagor... Don't you think that an organization fighting hate speech defines itself as having a strong bias against a hate site? The issue is not if the sources are reliable or biased but if opinions are distinguished from facts (quotes, in-text attribution). Ne Yorker (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Sources do not need to be neutral, they only need to be reliable.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs (what most of this article is about). Ne Yorker (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, thats what the policy says. Is there anything in particular you consider ought to have in text attribution?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is something in particular: the text lead. "Stormfront is a white nationalist, white supremacist and neo-Nazi internet forum" could be rewritten as "Stormfront is an internet forum variously described as white nationalist, white supremacist and/or neo-Nazi". Ne Yorker (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing the bias. Maybe some specificity would help. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Stormfront is a white nationalist, white supremacist, neo-Nazi, racial hate site, is well sourced, neutral, and not in doubt. Is there a specific proposal for improvement? If not, then the tags should be removed. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I question your neutrality. You mostly edit race-related pages [white privilege, race (human classification), caucasian race, race and genetics, nations and intelligence) or political (gun control). You also add the ADL as source (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gun_control&diff=prev&oldid=595508530). Why? Are you an activist? Ne Yorker (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It's always the same tag team of anti-White editors on every page. 211.169.83.67 (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• And then an IP with no other edits comes in and tells us the "real truth" Niteshift36 (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• I can't speak for the others, but if your first inclination is to start making allegations about being an activist, then I'm inclined to avoid the rush and start disregarding you now. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the pov template. Not something a new editor should add to an article, and Ne Yorker clearly doesn't understand or agree with our policies. Dougweller (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not "anti-white" to question the notion that blacks are inferior. (And WP, being neutral, must not try to promote ANY viewpoint on the issue) mike4ty4 (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"Welcome to Stormfront" says, "We are White Nationalists...." How is it biased to call them that? TFD (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Homicide

According to this report[2] by SLPC since 2009 more than 100 "bias related" homicides have been carried out by stormfront users. Might be worth including.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

77 of those 100 murders were commited by Anders Breivik, who was banned from StormFront after posting a few times on the forums.108.21.6.117 (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)