Talk:Volksfront

Clarification needed

The following sentence removed from the article for clarification and cleanup. WBardwin 17:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"Volksfront also founded Stuart Macbeath an australian Neo-Nazi set up the Patriotic youth league in australia."

In the opening, it says Volksfront has expanded to four continents and seven countries--only three continents are represented by those seven countries (N America, Europe, Australia). Should it read "3 continents" or should another country be added?

Cleanup, NPOV needed

Much of the material in this article reads like it's come off the group's own website, though I've been unable to find a copyvio. I've just removed material like

Volksfront believes that the power of positive change rests within their folk (Whites) and that the only means of bettering the position of Whites is through cultural education and consciousness, cooperative growth, and community improvement around the world. Volksfront officially rejects mass reaction and red front politics, and has a philosophy and political view based on a form of tribal democracy similar to that which as was found in Europe more than 1000 years ago.

because it was vague, failed NPOV, and I couldn't quite figure out what it meant. This article needs references for each statement it makes, and we should not just state the group's ideas without references. If we do state something, it should be concrete, not vague like "community building;" what does that mean? As with other groups, this article should not be used as a soapbox for the group. I'm going to keep working on this article and probably removing stuff I see as problematic. We can discuss here if there's any problem. delldot talk 17:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And what is "a closed membership cultural association"? This is the kind of vague stuff I'm talking about: does it mean something objective, or is it just fluff from the group's own literature? I recommend that we explain it clearly or remove it. delldot talk 17:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal

I've decided to remove all the unsourced history information because it's vague and sounds like it comes from the group's own literature. Anything that is referenced in a reliable source can be added back in. Let me know if there are any issues with this. delldot talk 17:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, quite; we need reliable third-party sources for content such as that. ELIMINATORJR 17:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the removal. If there going to be a history section posted, it should be substantiated. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

ages ?

several ages are given. Are these current ages? or ages when the events ocured ?J8079s (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Biased Sources

I don't think a non POV article can be written for this Organization. For instance all sources listed are from watchdog/lobby/groups that's stated purpose is to COMBAT groups like Volksfront. These sources aren't very reliable, and much of the information they print is just hear say and gossip they have uncovered on the internet or from jaded former members. How good of a source is this really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosgringo (talk • contribs) 06:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove fascism template

There is no sourcing or reason for this "fascism" template, this group does not follow the basic of a fascist group, if anything they are more ideas of libertarians then fascist.Ph14 (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know myself, but several reliable sources have described the group as "neo-Nazi", which indicates a connection to neo-fascism. The Wikipedia article on neo-Nazism says:

• The term neo-Nazism refers to post-World War II far right political movements, social movements, and ideologies seeking to revive Nazism, or some variant that echoes core aspects of Nazism such as racial or ethnic nationalism or Völkisch integralism. Neo-Nazis rarely use the word neo-Nazi to describe themselves, often opting for labels such as National Socialist, Nationalist or related terms.[5] A few scholars refer to neo-Nazism as "neo-National Socialism."[1] Some groups and individuals who support the ideology openly eschew Nazi-like terms to avoid social stigma or legal consequences. ... Neo-Nazis often use the Indo-Aryan symbols that were in use by Nazi Germany, such as the Swastika, Sig Runes and the red-white-black color scheme.

It does seem that Volksfront supports ethnic nationalism. Have they ever renounced fascism or makde some comment about Nazism?   Will Beback  talk  21:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

On there main site VF FAQ "bottom of the page" they address this and they clearly state No they are not nazis nor do they believe in or support tyrannical or totalitarian government of any type. P14 (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

We should certainly add that view. However it's not unusal for neo-nazi groups to deny that connections (I've expanded the quotation above). VF does appear to use symbols connected to Nazism, including the red-white-black color scheme. Someone has posted pictures that apparently show people wearing VF insignia or slogans standing besides or under swastikas, or raising their arms in something like a straight-arm salute.[1][2][3][4] And, most importantly, there are reliable sources that call them "neo-nazi". So we should include all points of view - both that the group is neo-Nazi and that it is not.   Will Beback  talk  22:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but we can not say that a few members represent the whole group when the group makes an open statement about how they do not support "Nazism". As posted by someone else there are no reliable sources on groups like this, there is the group's statement, and then the groups that say their goal is to destroy these groups. So i think the best way to make this as fair as possible is to, as you said, give both realms of the point of view. I will add this to the wiki and you are free to adjust it so it fits, for you are the more veteran contributor.P14 (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Your addition looks pretty good.   Will Beback  talk  03:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agreee that unless you can prove they are facist, they shouldn't be labeled as such here. I can't believe the anti-defamation league would qualify as NPOV any more than Volksfront's web page would, but without an actual credible source it's simply slander.

Since I'm here I also want to point out that in "According to groups such as the Anti-Defamation League, Volksfront is a virulently racist and anti-Semitic group", the word virulently is a weasel word and should probably be removed. 173.184.23.170 (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

We're not here to prove anything. We're just here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. We don't call the group "fascist", or even report anyone else doing so. "Virulent" is not a weasel word.   Will Beback  talk  07:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Continual Vandalism and POV insertion

The page has been repeatedly vandalized with the insertion of bias and partisan reference sources, unsourced material and "buzz words". Using the SPLC and ADL as source material would be similar to allowing the oil industry define environmentalists or Fox news to define democrats. Legal documents, proven members interviews, the group's publicly stated positions or material from some other neutral source should be the criteria.

Also listing crimes that were never attributed to Volksfront as an organization in a court of law by "alleged" members is simply throwing enough stuff against the wall hoping some of it sticks. Adam Lanza was "allegedly" a democrat, do we list the crimes of alleged followers of political views or movements in all pages of political organizations. Bill Ayers is a Democratic Party activist, allegedly, is he listed in the Democratic Party page?

Attempting to redefine a non-existent organization is some attempt to recreate the facts on the ground for whatever unknown purpose. The recent edits read like an advertisement for the SPLC, ADL and Anti-Fascists. They do not live up to the "who, what, when, where, why" test.

One or two reference from the ADL or SPLC would show an opposing view, 2 dozen SPLC, ADL and Anti-Fascist source references shows a bias.

I will edit again, leaving one reference from the SPLC, ADL and Anti-Fascists, but deleting the rest, which is a fair compromise to allow some opposing view point.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMWIA (talk • contribs) 14:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The material you just removed (with an inaccurate edit summary) was about the founder. Its normal to mention the founder in an organisation's article. Ayers and Lanz did not found the Democrats and were probably not active in the Democrats. -- haminoon (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

gang category

SMWIA is constantly removing the Gangs in the United States category. There are plenty of references for Volksfront being a gang and being in the United States in the article, including the article ""Campaign aims to stop gang recruiting". -- haminoon (talk) 11:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, the Portland Gang Enforcement Task Force Intelligence Unit stated to producers at the History Channel they did NOT consider Volksfront a gang and therefore didn't comment on their programming. The entire edits being done to the site are copy paste jobs from Liberal and Jewish organizations who make millions by opposing these groups and are not purely factual sources. Wikipedia is not a web site for political or personal smear jobs. I would be equally concerned if someone was filling the page with right-wing bias sources, links and references. I will leave the gang link to end the edit war going on here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SMWIA (talk • contribs) 13:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Volksfront denying allegations is not reliable either. Many Volksfront members had criminal records before joining. Randal Lee Krager admitted spending time in prison. Besides actions speak louder than words. Every time a Volksfront member was on the news for a crime, Volksfront would cop out on them. That's not true brotherhood! You claimed that the sources are unreliable because they come from Jewish people? Volksfront is recognized as a gang by local authorities. If they were so peaceful then why did they disbanded? Why did they attracted the attention of the local authorities? Stop removing content. I'll fix the new section, but you got to stop. "Your skin color pisses me off, but I intend to get over it." - Brandon Vespermann "Didn't like my high school so I decided to blow it up" - Randal Krager " "I like the hatred that most white nationalist viewed towards minorities, to the hatred of a cancer patient has towards his cancer cells." - Corey J. Miller "Volksfront is a hateful origination, they believed that the Government is being run by Zionist" - anonymous 'former' member

@Materialscientist: can you please review this dispute. Many users have reverted SMWIA (talk). ----BlueRedPurpleGreen (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Your above comments and unsigned edit show you have a bias here and agenda. If you read the talk from earlier this article has already been through this process. The basic precepts of it are false. You state "Volksfront is (was) recognized as a gang by local authorities." Which authorities and what proof do you have? Portland Police's Gang Enforcement Team stated otherwise. This article stood fine for several years until it was edit bombed and filled up with non-neutral POV edits and filled with dozens of reference sources that are absolutely bias. This was corrected by veteran editors in 2009 and already determined to be bias and slanderous.SMWIA (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Many users corrected the insertion of POV and bias reference sources years ago, I am simply maintaining the content that stood for years from propaganda and POV edits.SMWIA (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

SMWIA, you have removed a lot of material for being "biased" but I can't see what is biased it about it. I assume you aren't disputing it was factual. It doesn't appear to be worded in a biased way. Would you care to explain why each sentence should be removed? -- haminoon (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You bet. I, in fact, do dispute the factuality, and neutrality of the majority of the material. Neutrality is not my policy, it is the policy of Wikipedia. As it stands with included buzz words, references, and unsourced POV, nothing about the article could be considered neutral.

"Volksfront was founded by Randal Lee Krager along with three others while incarcerated in an Oregon prison.[7]" ADL reference, ADL is self-proclaimed Zionist lobbying organization whose opposition to Volksfront, while understandable, is based in diametrically opposing view points, and they raise substantial money to combat these organizations. The fact their information is used to further their fund raising efforts means the information is at best suspect. In addition, there are several other ADL links already included in the article, so their view point is already over represented. According to the SPLC Mr. Krager has left any type of political activity in order to raise his family. Considering the information is suspect, and the individual is no longer involved I believe it to be inappropriate for the article.

"Krager had earned the respect of his peers after serving two years for the 1992 assault on an African-American man who was left paralyzed and convictions for three counts of first-degree intimidation for threatening to murder three Jewish people. " This is pure unsourced conjecture. I see no factual testimony from his peers stating this was the reason he earned their respect. And Mr. Krager was not convicted of 3 counts of first degree intimidation, he plead no-contest to a single count.

"Police claimed that his crime was not racially motivated, but a judge said that the evidence of Krager being a skinhead, and having a swastika tattoo was enough to convicted him of a hate crime.[8][9][7]" Firstly, police and a grand jury in a very progressive and liberal city decided their was no evidence of racial bias in the crime and dismissed the Racial Intimidation charge, according the Oregonian Newspaper. The Judge, Steinbock, (who was Jewish and a member of the Jewish Lawyer's Guild and a Jewish activist according to his obituary in the Oregonian) apparently deviated from state sentencing norms to impose an upward departure for racial elements and the juvenile arrest record of Mr. Krager. An upward departure is not a "hate crime" under Oregon statute. Nor is a juvenile arrest record admissible in consideration for an upward sentencing departure.

"After being paroled in 1996, Krager's recruiting efforts made Volksfront a potent force along the West Coast from Eugene to Portland.[10]" Obvious POV.

"According to Krager's parole officer, Krager handed out Nazi leaflets and frequently arranged meetings with white supremacist associates.[10]" There are no quotes here from Mrs. Bowyer, the parole officer, so at best this a case of he said, she said, without an actual quotation.

"Krager told reporter Philip Dawdy of the Willamette Week that America was becoming too brown, diluting its "European-American culture," and that all minorities in the Northwest "will be repatriated."[10] "Too brown?", unquoted POV. The two quotes are quotes of words out of context, with the context inserted by the author.

In summary. The opposing views of ADL and SPLC are well represented. If the Krager material remains then some of the other ADL and SPLC material should be deleted. As it stands the article is a complete compilation of opposing political sources, with zero right wing or "white Nationalist" sources to balance the material. Also, the material referencing a vague , now defunct, organization is quite different when involving an actual human being with a family. Considering over 90% of the references are from fund raising and/or political organizations with a polar opposite view point you must ask, at what point is enough, enough. Wikipedia should not be a tool for revisionist history or propagation of political views from any spectrum, nor be used a vehicle for slander.

If you would like the Krager material to remain, at the least several of the other ADL and SPLC references should be deleted. Thanks for the polite dialogue. I will wait 24 hours for you response, before undoing you edit to see if we can find an understanding.SMWIA (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

"Police claimed that his crime was not racially motivated, but a judge said that the evidence of Krager being a skinhead, and having a swastika tattoo was enough to convicted him of a hate crime.[8][9][7]" Are you blind? It clearly says that police claimed that his crime was NOT racially motivated! If you have a problem with the Krager section, then talk to @AzureCitizen: who reedit the paragraph. ----BlueRedPurpleGreen (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem here? I don't see anything bias on this article. As a German person, I like for this groups to be expose for what they really are becuase they give my people a bad name, but I also don't like anyting bias to be on the wikipedia artilces. Krager has a huge criminal history, so how is it bias to add what he did to this article? I already removed some bias inputs, but the rest seem valid. Please explain yourself with a neutral stand. Not all sources come from ADL and the SPLC. BerlinKid22 (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is much of your material is non-factual and is based on non-neutral sources. 7 of 13 references are from self-avowed anti-racist, civil rights or far left sources, which is over half. The view point of anti-racist/anti-fascist organizations are well, if not over, represented. I am leaving those references but deleting your additional content. Berlinkid22, in your statement "As a German person, I like for this groups to be expose for what they really are becuase they give my people a bad name" I think you are revealing the bias in your intent. If a person wishes to review more information from anti-racist or civil rights organizations on the topic, they have 7 reference links to follow.SMWIA (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't add anyting this article! According to the edit history users AzureCitizen and BlueRedPurpleGreen did. I only have reverted you along with user Haminoon. You said that you'll remove the Krager section in 24 hours. (Not 24 hours yet.) BerlinKid22 (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I will be adding an equivalent amount pro-Volksfront material to maintain the page's neutrality over the next few weeks, including interviews, criminal transcripts and police reports of both Krager and his alleged victims for contextual clarity since the page has lost all semblance of neutrality. I think many will agree in the end, it should of been left as it stood for several years.SMWIA (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Removed reference to Richard Arden as a founder. Richard Arden has no criminal history and has never been in Oregon Prison and credit reports state he was living in California until the late 90's. American Swastika reference is bad even on this major detail.SMWIA (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Filler

I added more contextual filler, in particular to some of the groups roots in East Side White Pride, and the dissolution coinciding with the arrest of Misty Cook, a one time associate of the group. It seems in the recent edit war, the page became a bit of a mud slinging contest. I think the user SMWIA is incorrect in stating the anti-fascist links prove bias, and those should remain. I did find in my research much of the anti-fascist, anti-racist material was misquoted or creatively negligent in its context and summary. Unfortunately or not, there is not much material to draw from for a pro-Volksfront POV, so we must work with the material we have.

I believe the wiki as it stands if fairly accurate. I did incorporate one of the link to the groups web archive from SMWIA to hopefully allay his/her concerns on the one-sidedness of the material.

Thank you.

Hatnote

@Beyond My Ken: I changed the hatnote on this article from:

:''This article is about the defunct American racial separatist fraternal organization. [[:de:Volksfront|Volksfront]] is also the German and Dutch word for "people's front" (usually left-wing, see also: [[popular front]]), or for the right-wing [[Afrikanervolksfront|Afrikaner Volksfront]] in South Africa.''

This article is about the defunct American racial separatist fraternal organization. Volksfront is also the German and Dutch word for "people's front" (usually left-wing, see also: popular front), or for the right-wing Afrikaner Volksfront in South Africa.

to:

{{hatnote|Volksfront (German and Dutch for "people's front") may also refer to [[Popular Front (disambiguation){{!}}Popular Front]], or [[People's Front (disambiguation){{!}}People's Front]], or [[Afrikanervolksfront]]}}

Volksfront (German and Dutch for "people's front") may also refer to Popular Front, or People's Front, or Afrikanervolksfront

You reverted the change. Contrary to your opinion in your edit summary that is was "better before", there are several reasons in the context of the guidelines, including at WP:HATNOTE why the previous version is unsatisfactory.

• There are several errors in WP:HATNOTE#format. It does not use a hatnote template (and therefore, for instance, displays incorrectly in the mobile version). Links should be in sentence case.
• The link to German Wikipedia is a WP:SURPRISE: it does not take the reader where they thought they would go.
• It is too long (WP:HATNOTE Rule 2: "Keep explanations to a minimum; explain vital information only").

Would you please reverse your reversion, but by all means make improvements to my text if you think they are appropriate within the guidance. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC):Not using a template is irrelevant. What atter si what the reader sees.

None of your arguments are persuasive. (1) It's irrelevant whether a hatnote uses a template or not, what matters is what the reader sees; (2) A link is a link, and you have no idea what the reader thinks will happen; (3) The difference in lengths is insignificant.

The hatnote has been in the article in more or less its current form for over 6 years [5], and no one has objected to it in that time. Contrary to your personal opinion, it is easier to understand that your rather convoluted replacement, which doesnt even mention that subject of the article until at the end of the note. Given those facts, I will not revert. If you want to waste yours and everyone else's time with an RfC, go ahead, but without consensus you do not have policy-related leg to stand on (remember, MoS is NOT policy). Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Not using at least the generic {{hatnote}} template is not an option: it's needed for consistent and reliable display across all output options. The rest is more or less open to debate: a link to the German Wikipedia is really out of place and confusing in the way it's disguised; the links, as currently worded, need to be in sentence case (that's what's done when pointing to an article rather than referring to its topic), and the hatnote overall should aim to be shorter rather than wordier. There might be good reasons for making exceptions to any of these three things here, but it will be helpful if they're spelt out. – Uanfala (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course it is an option. Nothing about MoS is mandatory, and, besides WP:IAR is a thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I take that as an indication that you don't have any specific objections. One variant I can see that preserves much of the original wording is this;

This article is about the American racial organization. "Volksfront", in German and Dutch, may also refer to Popular front (usually left-wing), or to the right-wing Afrikaner Volksfront in South Africa.

How does that look? I don't think more information is needed for disambiguation purposes: e.g. there are no other American organisations listed so there's no need to specify that this organisation is separatist or fraternal. I've omitted the link for People's Front as none of the organisations listed there appear to be known as "Volksfront" (and that page is accessible from Popular front anyway). On a side note, the information about the etymology of the name is encyclopedic and so it will make sense to have in the article's text as well (many readers will ignore the hatnote if they're certain they've arrived at the right article). – Uanfala (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Might be acceptable if "defunct American white separatist organization" replaces your "American racial organization", which is vague, and could describe the NAACP, for instance. Being "white seperatist" is in the first sentence of the lede, and is integral to what the group was. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I can live with a longer hatnote. But just nothing that the point of the description there is not to precisely define the topic of the article, but to differentiate it from other topics with the same name. So the relevant pieces of information are that the group is American (to distnguish it from the South African Afrikaner Volksfront), and that it's white supremacist (to distinguish it from the ordinarily left-wing "People's Fronts"). "American white separatist organization" seems best to me, though again, I admit it won't be the end of the world if the word "defunct" is added. – Uanfala (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'm good with "American white separatist group". (I think "group" is a better choice than "organization", since it seems as if it was less formal than "organization" implies.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

New hatnote now as suggested and agreed. Thank you @Beyond My Ken: and @Uanfala:. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)