Talk:Stormfront (website)

Stormfront owner : Breivik was banned from Stormfront 3 years before his killings

According to Don Black (Stormfront owner) :

We did have a user account in 2008 which probably belonged to Breivik, but he only posted four times before being banned. He never even tried to come back after that (even banned users can log in, showing up on our records). [...] In fact, his closest confederate was Jewish radical Hans Rustad. Just before his murderous attack, Breivik wrote:

   "We must influence other cultural conservatives to take our anti-racist, pro-homosexual, pro-Israeli line of thought. When this direction is taken, we can take to the next level."

The SPLC also included the names of other murderers who had long been previously banned from Stormfront. They also threw in another particularly horrendous nutcase, Buford Furrow, who shot into a Jewish daycare center in 1999. He had never posted on Stormfront.

Our moderators and I have repeatedly posted that we will not tolerate any advocacy or even suggestion of illegal violence. We are diligent in removing such whenever we find it, and we want to help visitors understand fully how horrifically damaging this is to our efforts. And we work to provide a safe, supportive community for those who join us.

Don Black's Guidelines for Posting since 1995:

DO NOT advocate or suggest any activity which is illegal under U.S. law.

Before you post anything, remember that words have consequences, both for you and others. This is true even if they're posted pseudonymously on a discussion board.

Don't post anything you wouldn't want attributed to you in a court of law, quoted on the front page of the New York Times, or read by your mother. [...] Interestingly, the SPLC has inspired terrorism itself, including one murderous attack by a "gay rights" terrorist against the Family Research Council last year, which the SPLC had designated a "hate group" because it opposed same-sex marriage.

Pleading guilty to the charges, Corkins told the FBI after the shooting he intended to "kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-fil-A sandwiches in victims’ faces." Prosecutors said that Corkins planned to leave FRC after the attack and go to another conservative group to continue the reign of terror. A handwritten list of three other groups was found with Corkins’ belongings. An investigation of Corkins’ computer found that he identified his targets on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website. [...] Source : https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1036143/?postcount=1#post12038498 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurent de Lyon (talk • contribs) 11:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine, then we can discuss quoting Black using one of the independent sources, not the one you tried to use several months ago. Breivik was a user at one point, and may have continued to read and even edit under a different name. Sadly we block people here who manage to continue to edit. But the material you removed is sourced to several mainstream media outlets and should not have been removed. The Corkins murder has nothing to do with the Stormfront website so is irrelevant here. Doug Weller (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• As Doug Weller said, being banned doesn't mean he wasn't still a user. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

He was still a registered user, which is all the article says. However I find the coverage of this topic in the article implicit synthesis. It implies a connection between reading Stormfront and terrorism, without saying what it is. If we have a expert who explains what connection s/he sees, we should put that in and can include Black's rebuttal. TFD (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree - the article does not say that there's a connection between reading Stormfront and terrorism. It doesn't even say that Stormfront users are terrorists. It simply states a fact - that a handful of murderers, including at least one mass murderer, that committed so-called "hate crime" murders, were Stormfront users. It's not an opinion, and frankly, I'm surprised that anyone finds the inclusion of that fact controversial. If anything, not including that paragraph could be construed as a form of censorship; ie, not wanting the truth about these individuals being drawn to a white power website on the page. Rockypedia (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller, you said we can discuss quoting Black using one of the independent sources. I suggest this one :

[...]Don Black, a former Ku Klux Klan member and the founder of Stormfront, told ABCNews.com the Southern Poverty Law Center's report was "ludicrous" and said the number of murdered was inflated because they included Breivik, who he said posted only a few times on the site before he was banned.

"There are any number of websites who have had murderers come through their ranks," Black said, naming several popular social media and online personals websites.

"We have had a few people who have gone on shooting sprees. Most were domestic issues that didn't have anything to do with politics," Black said.

Frazier Glenn Miller, the man who allegedly killed three people outside two Jewish sites in Kansas last weekend, posted more than 12,000 times on a different racist web forum, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Miller was charged this week with one count of capital murder and a second count of premeditated first degree murder. He has not yet entered a plea.

Black, who said he knows Miller from decades ago, said he wasn't welcome on the Stormfront website since he became a "government informant" in exchange for a plea deal and testified against several white supremacists at a 1988 sedition trial.

"He was certainly unwelcome and I couldn't imagine why he would think he is welcome. He was a big time government informant," Black said. "He wouldn’t have been allowed to post the stuff he had [on VNN] on our board."

Stormfront is staffed with moderators, Black said, who "do not tolerate illegal violence, even the suggestion of illegal violence."

"Anybody who says anything like that gets shown the door," he said.

Black said his website is a place for white nationalists to "discuss the truth as we see it" and if anything, may act as a deterrent.

"The kind of people that are more likely to go out and do something and go on a shooting spree are by themselves typically," he said. "If they become part of our community they are less likely to do something because they have a support group.

Source : http://abcnews.go.com/US/stormfront-website-posters-murdered-100-people-watchdog-group/story?id=23365815 Laurent de Lyon (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Far, far too long and clearly self-serving. Of course Black said that. He's not going to admit that Stormfront incites racial violence. Or that it tolerates racial slurs, eg this reply to an anti-racist:"Jesus is going to cast traitors like you into Hell along with all the evil savages who ever dared to beniger his people." Or [1] - loads of posts attacking Jews, from "jews double-park all the time" to "seems the judes have finally started to wear out their welcome and people are getting sick of them." Or [2] where the poster substitutes 'Jews' for 'News'. This is why we don't take Black's word for it, and in fact the article should not state as fact that "Stormfront keeps the rhetoric in its forums muted, discourages racial slurs, and prohibits violent threats and descriptions of anything illegal," It certainly allows loads of racial slurs. Doug Weller (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed as I said the article does not say there's a connection between Stormfront and terrorism, it implies it. If it does not, then why mention it? If we could determine that most mass murderers had at one time or another eaten carrots, would you add it to that article? TFD (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I would, if you could find a reference that their carrot-eating was higher than that of the general population. But this is an article about a particular website with a very narrow purpose, so more to your point, if Stormfront was a website that attracted people that were either very anti- or pro-carrot-eating, I would include the fact that most users ate carrots as well. Even more to the point, killing people based on their race or religion, especially killing more than one person at a time, is a character trait that is not shared by very many people, while most people have eaten carrots. So from any angle, your analogy is hopelessly flawed.Rockypedia (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You would still need to explain the connection. For example, some editors find it significant that Jews were "over-represented" in Communism, Hollywood, banking, the slave trade, etc., while blacks over over-represented in criminal activity, and add it to those articles. While not explicitly saying it is because Jews and blacks are evil, it conveys that implicit message. It is implied synthesis, which is contrary to policy. TFD (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, I don't think that analogy holds, because Communism, Hollywood, etc. don't have some central message about Jews. The Stormfront website is there to provide a gathering place for people who believe the white race is superior to other races - so the fact that there's been hate crimes committed by registered members of the site is certainly notable. With regard to blacks being over-represented in criminal activity, there's evidence that that's because of police officers over-arresting them, and plenty of other factors, and yeah, I would actually note all of those facts in an appropriate place, with references. Rockypedia (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Stormfront view of the world and what they want can be read in their introduction for new Stormfront members :

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t968576/

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t968583/

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t968594/

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t968596/

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1001939/

Unlike Breivik, Stormfront doesn't support Israel. That's why I still don't understand the association with Stormfront. In Europe, pro-Israeli extreme right-wing leaders (such as Geert Wilders) believe in Eurabia stuff, a vision not shared by Stormfront.

Laurent de Lyon (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Stormfront doesn't support Israel, so Breivik must not be influenced by Stormfront. That's a nice strawman. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

And as I've shown above, what Stormfront wants the world to think about it and its posters, and the actual posts on it, are quite different. It appears that User:Laurent de Lyon either doesn't understand this - or is perhaps a user? Doug Weller (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stormfront (website). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ojr.usc.edu/content/story.cfm?id=192

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Fraktur font

Regarding this: "The site's logo is written in the Fraktur font." I thought that was odd because we show an image captioned "Stormfront's logo" that is obviously not Fraktur. The cited sources says "The home page, in Fraktur font..." but that seemed even more unlikely, as Fraktur is pretty much unreadable. I checked the site itself and got a blank page. The Wayback Machine snapshot from January 2015 (when the cited source was published) shows two logos, the one we have, and the one in the info box at the top of this article, which does indeed use Fraktur. Since the cited source is wrong, I thought the best thing would be to just say "The site uses the Fraktur font" and leave it at that. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Far right politics category

Removing this category because of sock puppetry is bureaucracy run amok. Is there another reason not to include it?That man from Nantucket (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not going to answer on my talk page and here, so I removed it from my talk page. You waited a whole 35 minutes before declaring I've refused to answer. Try a little good faith. The category has been removed by enough different editors that it merits an actual discussion on this page. So let's try that, huh? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you might have responded here first, as I assume you saw my question? No matter now, water under the bridge. Why has it been removed? The only reason that I've seen so far has been that it was added by a sock. If there is another, I'd like to know the reason why. It seems like it is an appropriate category.That man from Nantucket (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• 35 minutes dude. Chill out. I made other edits in the interim to other articles. My sole purpose here is not to jump when you tell me to jump. The category is far right politics. What political activities in this article merit including it in that category? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Show some common courtesy the next time someone asks a question instead of reverting and moving on. To quote Wikipedia's definition of "far right politics", to whit According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, in liberal democracies, the political Right opposes socialism and social democracy. Right-wing parties include conservatives, Christian democrats, classical liberals, nationalists and, on the far Right, racists and fascists. Yes, I think that fits the definition of Stormfront quite nicely, and any claim to the contrary is myopic. That man from Nantucket (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• Common courtesy? No room for you to even say that phrase. So, on to the actual topic. Nice dictionary definition, but my question was not what does far right mean. My question is: What political activities in this article merit including it in that category? Merely believing something may not be enough. If it isn't acted on in a significant way, what makes it any different from including someone in a category about chefs because they microwave a Hot Pocket. Both prepare food, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah this definitely isn't the right way to go about things. That being said, if the submitter ever calms down and does this the right way, I would be in favor of including that category. It's appropriate, IMO. Just my two cents. But first, learn how to use Wikipedia. Rockypedia (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The right way? I am doing things the right way. I posted a question here asking for a discussion yet there are a few editors, an admin included, who seem more intent on fucking with a human being who is socking by giving them the silent treatment than working on the actual article. Is that how Wikipedia is supposed to work? I think not. Regardless, I do thank both you and Nighshift36 for at least acknowledging the actual subject of this section, though your support for the category shouldn't be conditional on my Wikipeida education. If there is no objection here, I will add the category back in. However I will wait a reasonable period for others to voice their opinions. That man from Nantucket (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you posted a question here, and waited mere minutes before losing your composure over lack of immediate response. No, you're not doing things the right way (hint, coming to my page after a few minutes threatening to "escalate" things if I don't immediately respond isn't doing things the right way). And no, the matter is being discussed, so you shouldn't restore anything yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is you reverted me without bothering to to answer one of two queries, without even as much as an edit summary. Maybe you thought I was the sock? That is the only reason I can think of that would explain your behavior. But enough with the finger pointing. This article on Stormfront clearly mentions political figures are members as well as the organization being mentioned in several political "events", not to mention the infobox that states this article is "Part of the Politics and elections and Politics series on Neo-fascism. Even a simple search yields several RS mentioning Stormfront in this context. What would convince you this category is applicable? I've asked myself the exact opposite question, and for the life of me I can't find anything to the contrary.That man from Nantucket (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm done listening to you bitch about the revert. Give it a rest. I see the article mentioning political figures, but that still isn't answering my question. Saying that they gained members when Obama was elected isn't political activity. The owner of the site personally donating $500 (a fairly insignificant sum) to a failed candidate isn't evidence of the website engaging in political activity. Gaining traffic during an election isn't evidence of the website engaging in political activity. This article is about THE WEBSITE. The website is just a forum for racists to talk to each other. They may express political opinions on there that are far right, but the website itself (the actual subject of the article) hasn't really engaged in political activities. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article be added to the category Far-right politics in the United States? That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support It should be apparent from reading the article that Stormfront, among other things is associated with far-right politics. There are a multitude of reliable sources stating this, such as this one and this one. That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
• Undecided: Since this article is about the website, I think we should see some direct connection for actual political activities by the site. The 2 sources mentioned above talk about right wing, but fail to make the connection to political activity beyond registered users talking to each other. Merely having a forum for people to discuss it doesn't seem like "politics" to me. Also, I think this is too early for a RFC. We've had less than a day of discussion. Someone here is impatient. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support inclusion Political activity isn't confined to 'standing for office' or engaging in mainstream politics. There are numerous refs in the article to political positions that are wholly 'far-right'. The argument against seems wholly semantic. Pincrete (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• What argument against is that? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

That a 'forum for discussion' can't be political, what is being discussed on the forum? Flower arranging? Cookery? A newspaper can be described as 'just discussing', does that mean that the newspaper doesn't have a political position? But RS is the killer argument for me. Pincrete (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Except that I've made no real argument against in the RFC. I clearly (and in bold print) said I was undecided and have asked if there was more evidence about activity beyond users talking to each other. You took it upon yourself to declare my questions and request to be an argument against. Yes, much of the discussion on there is political. Some of it is not.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Off topic

I was referring to the discussion above as much as the RfC. If there isn't disagreement, why is there an RfC? Pincrete (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Why is there a RFC? That's a very good question. A single editor decided that we needed one after less than 24 hours of discussion. I asked him the couple of questions I've asked in this and he avoided them, choosing instead to open a RFC, which is a much slower process than simply having a discussion and gaining consensus. Then, the OP said he'd wait a "reasonable amount of time", which amounted to about 6 hours before opening a RFC. So please, don't blame my asking a couple of questions for the fact that we have a RFC. This is because of impatience. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC) I started the RfC because not due to impatience, but mostly to seek other opinions. I'm perfectly aware that RfCs take longer, but the level of antagonism and condescending tone was being ratcheted up to a point that I felt only an RfC would ameliorate.That man from Nantucket (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC) You mean the tone that went straight downhill when you popped a blood vessel because it took 35 minutes to answer you? Then you turned around and waited a whole 6 hours for this. Oh, you're plenty impatient my friend. WP:3O would have probably been a better choice. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC) I suppose I shouldn't reply, but I'll go against my better judgment on this subject one last time. After this I shan't respond unless it's about this article. WP:BRD is how content disagreements are supposed to be handled. I had opened the section above and you reverted the article content without even the courtesy of a reply. Not even a "I'll reply later", and when I asked on your talk page, you removed my question without even an edit summary saying you intend to respond. No reply or even an indication you would reply, yet you had time to make several other unrelated edits (and you have the gall to call me impatient???) Here's some unsolicited advice for you, since you seem to be keen on dishing it out. If you don't have the time to discuss an edit, don't make the edit in the first place.That man from Nantucket (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC) 35 minutes. And don't talk about BRD. That had been removed multiple times before you jumped in. We were past the B and the R. You just skipped the D part. Yes, I'm calling you impatient. The fact that you are so concerned that I didn't immediately jump to your question and actually attended to something else first supports that. Here's some unsolicited advice for you: Discuss more than a day before opening a RFC. Or actually, just discuss period. Most of your "discussion" in that brief few hours before you jumped straight to RFC was bitching whining about the fact that I didn't immediately answer your demands. So, impatient.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support It is one of the major websites used by the U.S. far right. Also, agree with Pincrete. Far right politics is not just about fielding candidates, but covers other activities as well. TFD (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• But wouldn't politics at least have some activity beyond talking? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily. That seems like an arbitrary line to draw. Rockypedia (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support I've been to the forums at that site and read what the regular users have to say. I suggest anyone weighing in on this debate do the same (it's free, easy, and you don't have to register). It's fair to say that the clear majority of the discussions there are political, and that virtually all of the people discussing politics come at every issue from a far-right perspective. Granted, that's a primary source, but it's conclusive, complete, and convincing. I'm pretty sure I could find a reliable secondary source or several that talk about what's going on there. I see no reason that category shouldn't be added. Rockypedia (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest using TOR or some anonymizer service. Visiting that site might get you on a list of some sort. I'd also warn you that you might feel like you lost a little bit of your soul after doing so.That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

So true. I've had first-hand experience. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support Obviously belongs in that category. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Looking at what pages are in the category, this article clearly fits. It's a forum for far right political commentary and discussion. It's a notable one as well, having been in the news for its far right association. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stormfront fraktur

Fraktur.. This style of writing was used all over in german speaking countries before the second world war. Actually the nazis abolished it, during world war 2. it is speculated that this move was done to make german more readable all over europe. The idea that fraktur was prefered by the nazis in the 20s is pure speculation and does not matter in any respect as it was the prefered font for german speaking countries opposed to antiqua used in latin descendant countries. Antiqua was even used for instance for french, or italian words embedded in german fraktur text. So i propose to delete the phrase. Haschka (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

DDOS attacks on the site and the current outage

Stormfront is currently down with DNS errors. For a few days prior to that, the site was acting very slow like it was under a DDOS attack. The slowness started at the same time that cyberterrorists and black supremacists were hitting other sites such as Gab, The Daily Stormer, etc. So it would be appreciated if there was any reliable information about this. The SPLC has a page on this, which is suspicious that they would be the first site to have credible-sounding inside information about the site.

2606:A000:8687:CE00:F889:6704:7119:97B5 (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I've seen that story floating around right-wing news sites, but anything that wasn't right-wing has already accepted that that was just an excuse by Stormfront to deny that they were losing their webhosting. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

And the bit about cyberterrorists and black supremacists is, well, "fake news". Doug Weller talk 16:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It isn't "fake news," but my personal observations. Please help keep such pejorative terms off of here.2606:A000:8687:CE00:F889:6704:7119:97B5 (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

If they'd lost their webhosting, it would already be showing. 105.5.128.180 (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Its domain status is marked as "clientHold" according to WHOIS. What significance does this hold? 108.30.175.182 (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Anglin [3] is saying it's the same domain status change that happened to The Daily Stormer... still a bit of a guess at this time though, what's actually happening. --Nanite (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

"was"

I don't disagree that the usage of the word "was" is inaccurate, since the site is, well, effectively gone for the time being. However, it's not particularly unlikely that the site will be back soon, on the "dark web" if nothing else. Just something to bear in mind. CompactSpacez (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should at least have some sort of statement from the site's owner before treating it as history so soon. We don't yet know what the situation is, and the few news articles I've seen written on the subject so far (including the one cited) are purely speculative. I suggest, at least for the time being, treating the site as active but with a note mentioning its current inaccessibility at least until more substantive reports on the situation appear. Thoughts? 108.30.175.182 (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, they only lost their domain name. The site is indeed there if you know the IP address. They have not lost their host yet. According to a notice on their site, they are working with their attorneys to try to reclaim their domain name.2606:A000:8687:CE00:7856:19D9:F0D2:64ED (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I just checked and the site is both accessible and active. I'm changing the "was" to "is." I do not know re. the status of the "seized" part, so leaving that to others to decide. Phantom in ca (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant information.

Following an April 2009 shooting, Richard Poplawski, a poster on the site, was charged with ambushing and killing three Pittsburgh Police officers and attempting to kill nine others.[44]

That shooting was the result of a domestic dispute, it had nothing to do with StormFront or White Nationalism. Why does it matter that the gunman had an account on StormFront? He also had an account on MySpace and I don't see any mention of him in the Wikipedia article about MySpace. Right now this article seems to imply some kind of guilt by association which is not what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. --9999HP999MP (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedian. I had a look at the cited source, and even a few others which aren't cited there. It seems that Poplawski's affiliation with various right wing factions including the now defunct Stormfront website were aspects peculiar to this incident, such that they contribute to an understanding of this article's subject, and were widely reported on by reliable sources. Wikipedia makes inclusions based on facts which are notable enough to warrant their addition to the project. None of the sources I checked noted his membership at myspace. They did however mention his membership and the nature of his postings at Stormfront. That's why it is included here. I don't see a case to warrant its removal since it is substantiated by sources and serves to shed information on notable persons and events connected with the subject of this article. Lots of people have a myspace page, whilst a relatively few number of people maintained an account at Stormfront, which is why lots of news sources commented on the fact. Other editors will look at your proposal to remove the information and the consensus of those editors will determine whether or not to remove the information. Edaham (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

"None of the sources I checked noted his membership at myspace." That's strange, because that's how they found his StormFront account in the first place. You may want to see https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t435052/#post4789744 As for your claim that "Lots of people have a myspace page, whilst a relatively few number of people maintained an account at Stormfront" what does it matter? By the way StormFront has 327,433 registered users, obviously nowhere near as many as on MySpace but not exactly "a few". The wikipedia article mentions that he had a MySpace page. The article also mentions that the shooting was caused by a domestic dispute between Poplawski and his mother about a family dog not StormFront. One of the citations in that article even claims that Poplawski was "neither far right nor far left... just confused" and that "He kept up a friendship with Aaron Vire, a black man, yet despised race-mixing." Why do you feel it is necessary to mention Richard Poplawski in an article about StormFront when the shooting clearly had nothing to do with StormFront?--108.21.11.114 (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The requirement is not that the information is relevant, but that it is considered relevant in secondary sources. TFD (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Stormfront back online

Considering that Stormfront is back online, someone more familiar with the dates should update the history section, with emphasis to the illegal seazing of the domain by its registrar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.149.242 (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Illegal? You have a court case that says that, or is that simply your opinion? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Illegal? Yes, because a registrar has a contract with ICANN for a websites registration concession, but nowhere does that concession give the discretionary right to decide what site can be registered or not based on political reasons. The only legitimate reason to refuse registration is if the website has illegal contents in the country of the registrar. Nota bene, a concession for the service of registration does not give any ownership of the internet nor right to decide who can have a website on the internet or not, it only gives the right to perform a service, without any discretionary rights for the registrar. Network Solutions baselessly appropriated a right that is not theirs under the contract of their concession. Hosting is a different thing, but registering is the issue here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.149.242 (talk)‎ (talk • contribs) 11:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

So, I take it your answer is, your opinion. Rockypedia (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

That would appear to be the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

It is the obvious logical implication of the agreements and contracts regulating the Internet. After those facts were presented to them, Network Solutions understood that they would lose in court, and backed down.

IF you have a reliable source that states "After those facts were presented to them, Network Solutions understood that they would lose in court, and backed down" or something to that effect, feel free to add it to the page. But if you don't, then your statement falls under WP:OR - original research, and as such, won't be added to the article. Rockypedia (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Network Solutions will never admit that this was the reason (although I know for a fact that this argumentation was presented to them), but only very naive people would believe that they backtracked from their initial deregistration of Stormfront for reason of freedom of speech principles... It is interesting though, that the information that Stormfront is back online, keeps being deleted from this page...

If you want to edit here, start learning how the site works. Information that is cited to a reliable source is fine; anything you add that's not sourced can be challenged and removed. It's not "interesting" that uncited information is removed; it's site policy. Second, edits like this one aren't going to convince anyone that you're here to improve the article. Third, start signing your posts with ~~~~. And finally, on a punctuation note, you don't end a sentence with "..." - only one period is required. Rockypedia (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying that I have to give a "reliable source" for the fact that Stormfront is back online, when it is there for anyone to see? Just click on https://www.stormfront.org

How can that fact be challenged?! This is not impartial site policy, this is clear political bias! OK, I will give the web adress next time. I hope it is reference enough.

As for your example "not convincing anyone" (who is "anyone"?), why would the liberal antifa narrative about Stormfront be the only one on Wikipedia? Why can't Stormfronter's views about the forum have at least equal status? Why cannot it be said that Stormfronters don't view it in the way of the description given at the start of this page, but as a site for the preservation of the White race? Is it also "site policy" to only acknowledge the views inimical to Stormfront, not those which would give a definition corresponding to how Stormfronters themselves view the site ?

Aha, I see that you have now blocked the possibility for non registered users to put on this page the exact and true information, verifiable by one click, that Stormfront is back online.

It is mentioned several times on the page now, in a proper fashion. Move along and drop the stick. Jarkeld (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

NOW it is, finally! After much insisting. But only at one place, deep in the page. The introductory "In August 2017, Stormfront's registrar seized its domain name due to complaints that it promoted hatred and that some of its members were linked to murder" is still not updated with the news.

Still, why is Stormfront only defined with antifa/liberal definitions, not at least equally with a definition representing the view of Stormfronters themselves: that it is a site dedicated to the preservation of the White race? This is a clear political bias.

Go read WP:RS. All of it. And don't bother replying again until you've done your homework. Rockypedia (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

As for references, the first sentence of the page says, for example, that it "is" a hate site, because someone said so, somewhere.

Wouldn't it be more objective and impartial to say that it is considered a hate site by some, not that it "is" a hate site, and then say what Stormfronters themselves consider it to be? And I must say that some of the references in the article are ridiculous. For example the last sentence of the page about "Stormfront promoting islamophobia" refers to a page where the only reference to Stormfront's islamophobia is a single post from some obscure forum member in some obscure forum thread.

You must be a fast reader. Rockypedia (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

How about updating the introductory paragraph with: "The site came back online on September 29, 2017."

I think that such introductory paragraph is misleading without this essential information, wouldn't you say? If you said in that paragraph that the domain was seized in august, you must update it with the actual information, or the reader who will not bother to read the whole page, where the new info is burried deep, might get the impression that the site is still down.

I would ask you to read WP:UNDUE, but since you ignored my previous request to read WP:RS, I think I'm done wasting my time here. Have a nice day. Rockypedia (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

How is the claim that Stormfront "is" white supremacist, neo-nazi or a hate site, a "neutral point of view"?

It could only be neutral if it was formulated differently. For example that it is considered such and such by these and those, but considered as a site about the preservation of the White race by Strormfronters themselves. THAT would be neutral! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.53.149.242 (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2017‎ (UTC)

Ah threats... the "argument" of the last resort, when you are out of arguments... If breach of your own rules cannot be discussed on Wikipedia, it says a lot about Wikipedia. There are no "neutral reliable sources in politics. Politics is war. The only way for Wikipedia to follow its own proclaimed policy of neutrality in face of politics is to present views as views, not as facts. And this is obviously what was not done on this page. This is not mathematics, physics or chemistry, where there is strong objectivity, this is politics, the realm of subjective ideologies, value systems and beliefs, and in that context, views coming from any belief or ideological background must be presented as such, otherwise, your proclaimed "neurality" is just a cheap fallacy.

• Since you obviously haven't read NPOV, perhaps you should consider it. Stating what the reliable sources say is on point here. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The last sentence of the page states that Stormfront became active in promotiong islamophobia, and the reference for that statement is a page where the only reference to Stormfront is a quote from a unique post from an obscure member of Stormfront - and this is sufficient for Wikipedia to state as a FACT that Stormfront is active in promoting islamophobia... Wow!

As for the other "reliable sources", they may be "reliable" in leftie, "liberal" and selg proclaimed "progressive" circles, but since those circles represent in themselves an ideological side, there can be no talk about a neutral point of view here.

• Sign your posts. Edaham (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

BTW. what about the introductory chapter of the page? Why so reluctant to include the info that Stormfront is back online, there? Why does someone keeps deleting that info, even when properly referenced according to your policy. Don't you understand that if you state THERE that Stormfront was put offline but not update it also THERE that it is back online, you are intentionally misleading people who just throw a look at the page?