This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
There were three references for the "ties to Ku Klux Klan" assertion in the opening sentence, and all were flawed. The first reference was to a KKK site that doesn't work, and because Thomas Robb sponsors an event that someone speaks at doesn't mean that the speaker is tied to the KKK. If you are asked to speak somewhere, are you tied with everyone connected to the event and the organizations that they are involved in? No, and such an assertion is a stretch at best. The second reference was to a Toronto Sun article which reported on the ARA protesting at Fromm's house not about Fromm having ties to the KKK. The third reference was to an antisemitism site that alleges that Fromm has prominence in the "neo-Nazi speaking circuit," but does not mention the KKK.
It can be established, however, that Fromm has ties to David Duke and Don Black (both former KKK members) through Stormfront, and thus I changed the sentence to that which can be verified.
Public Opposition:
A paragraph in the public opposition section, about the protest at Fromm's house, did not accurately reflect the way the event was reported in the article that it uses as a reference. If you don't believe me, contact the Toronto Sun and ask them for a copy from the archives.
In the opposition to Tamils section, a cherry picked quote saying, "...so terrified the receptionist that she locked the door...." was used to put the protest in the worst possible light. It does not mention that they acted peacefully and lawfully and that it ended without incident. On the other hand, the paragraph in the public opposition to Fromm section leaves out the fact that the police had to follow the ARA (it didn't even indentify them) from the start in riot gear, removed them from private property, nor that Richard Warman encouraged it, and the paragraph ends by saying that there was no incident to put that protest in the best possible light. One can only conclude that an attempt is being made to slant information that is presented and that's not an appropriate use of Wikipedia.
I have just been readings scans of some of the old issues of Straight Talk!, the official bulletin of the Edmund Burke Society. In one of their articles discussing this particular "event", it was said that, to the apparent approval of the audience, Kunstler invited Fromm up onto the stage to speak; and THEN emptied a pitcher of water over Fromm's head, before he could speak; and THEN assaulted Fromm, rendering him unconscious.
A book published by an academic in 1987 (Is God A Racist? by Stanley R. Barrett) revealed that Paul Fromm is a federal police agent, he set up his Edmund Burke Society as a national police front for multiple federal police agencies reporting to the Prime Minister and the Justice Minister.
It is therefore quite frankly irrational to call Fromm anything but a police stooge, an agent provocateur. What should be done is to investigate how this happened, what the consequences have been, and how Fromm has assisted the federal police since he was recruited in 1967, up to the present day. This would bring about a profile of who Fromm really is, what he has been up to, and why he has been up to it.
"In 1991, Fromm was instrumental in helping former Toronto Sun education writer Judi McLeod - also a member of Fromm's organization C-FAR "Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform" - start the right-wing newspaper "Our Toronto" now known as "The Toronto Free Press" and "Canada Free Press". Fromm and McLeod were close through mutual friend Richard James who in turn was a close personal friend of Ernst Zundel."
This is a maliciously made falsity and should be removed. Judi McLeod is anti-racist, has written articles criticising Ernst Zundel, of whom she and Canada Free Press would seem to have a very low opinion thereof. She never even had any contact with Paul Fromm, as far as I know. Nor was she ever a member of C-FAR, which is a neo-nazi front. Hobbes00021:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
McLeod's newspaper has published racist articles including this gem [1]"The admission of Turkey into the European Community will be the final blow to the Christian identity of Europe. Once the Turkish people are free to live in and work, legally, in the European nation of their choice, the problem will not be Paris burning but a deluge of Islamic immigrants into the Christian world which will be unstoppable. If one remembers with horror the acts of Black September, the Red Brigade, or the sectarian violence in Yugoslavia; then, just wait until every citizen of Turkey has a European Passport." You claim McLeod has written articles denouncing Ernst Zundel, Paul Fromm, etc but these articles are nowhere to be found. Links, please. Or were you hoping you could bluff us? That's a typical Judi McLeod tactic. In fact Judi McLeod refuses to write anything against Paul Fromm and published a short letter to the editor from him. --Cyberboomer00:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The author of the paragraph has been asked for a citation, and the request is in the article itself. I'm sure he'll be by to explain himself soon enough. Jayjg (talk)21:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the author of the paragraph in question (I put it back in after someone took it out but I did not put it in originally). It is consistent, however, with what I personally know about McLeod from observing her in the 1980s though (for what that's worth). Homey22:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
IE I know she has had contact with Paul Fromm because I saw it with my own eyes circa 1987. Now, that is original research and is not, in and of itself, sufficient for including the fact in the article - however, I wasn't the actual author of the paragraph making the allegation - I just happen to know it's credible from my own experience. Homey
It being original research (is the proper format for a response in a talk page btw?), and still without a citation as asked, I think we can agree to take it off for now. Ok? Hobbes00015:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've put it in as a "hidden comment" (which means readers can't see it but also means it doesn't get lost) and will go through the history and see if I can find who added it. Homey15:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your hidden comment wasn't hidden. Since I don't know how to do it myself, I took it out for now. If you can redo it properly, that'd be great. Hobbes00018:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed this from the page itself, as although it isn't visible, it's still searched by Google. Hopefully its presence here on the talk page will be enough to remind editors that it's there and needs verification. Mindspillage(spill yours?)18:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The allegation was added on July 27th by an IP user, 66.98.152.31 . This makes it harder to trace, I'll leave a query on the User's talk page anyway. Homey15:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For now, that seems acceptable to me. It really looks like an attempt at slander, but if it can't be seen, then I don't really have a problem with it. Although, if we can't find a citation in the next several weeks, or month or so, I think it's best to take it out altogether until something reenters to change the equation. Hobbes00015:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have a personal experience that leads me to believe the claim is not "slander" but is perfectly plausible (particularly as the passage was contributed by another user, not myself). However, personal experience is not sufficient evidence for wikipedia articles so I can't rely on that as a basis to retain the comment. McLeod may have changed her views over the years but being familiar with her columns in the Toronto Sun in the 1980s (particularly on apartheid) and having observed her behaviour closehand I have no problem believing that in the 1980s she was close to Fromm and shared a number of his views at the time. Homey16:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt she ever had those views, and I shall endeavour to look for old articles of hers which prove the contrary when I am next at the Reference library. However, given that you and I can both google articles of Canada Free Press and use it to find articles that demonstrate verifiable clear disgust and dislike for neo-nazis and their positions, and that I can't find anything at all on Fromm helping her found the newspaper, I believe it to be inappropriate and irresponsible to put in the article until we have actual proof beyond original research. Also, see my comment above on having had to take out the paragraph because the hidden paragraph wasn't hidden. Hobbes00018:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's now hidden properly. Anyway, I did say that my own personal evidence is not sufficient to justify inclusion in the article but, nevertheless, it is sufficient for me to believe the claims are credible. I do know for a fact she and Fromm were friends in the late 1980s and I suspect a number of school trustees from the period have made the same observation. I doubt she's ever written "my friend Paul Fromm" in an article but that's beside the point. I don't know where the anon IP got his or her information and until and unless he or she (or someone) provides a source I agree it shouldn't be included but my point is that your "doubt" she had ever had those views does not convince me that the info is incorrect. Homey19:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, for now. I guess we both have our postions on this, and I appreciate your integrity and honesty. I'm guessing that you are referring to how you saw Fromm talking with McLeod once. I'm not so sure that constitutes two people being friends. Anyways, I am going to go do Roman history articles now, and leave this one alone, my main issues having been dealt with in this and the related articles. Hobbes00019:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a bit more than "Fromm talking with McLeod once." Anyway, you sound like you know her personally, why don't you ask her a) if she knows Fromm and b) why she was fired from the Toronto Sun?Homey20:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know someone who works for her, and I've met her a few times since she speaks at universities and schools around Toronto every so often. So, I have a superficial idea of what she's like. And the reason I doubt her being a racist or neo-nazi or association with a neo-nazi, anti-Semite and bigot like Paul Fromm is because the guy is Jewish. And the guy who came before him was Japanese. So the allegations comes to me as a surprise. Anything's possible, but given that the articles I find on google refer to Ernst Zundel as a nutbar, and denounce his ideas, well I would think that count as evidence against her being a neo-nazi.
I agree, there's no particular evidence that she is anti-Semitic, however, she certainly was not anti-apartheid in the 1980s when South Africa was Fromm's big issue (along with immigration and foreign aid). Homey21:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into that. I'm too young to remember apartheid, but my dad told me that a lot of the opposition to the anti-apartheid movement in the 1980s was due to the movement's association with communists and socialists, rather than actual support for apartheid (which is morally and rationally indefensible), since it took place in a time of severe cold war tension. That could go a long way towards explaining it, since everyone would have been worried that if the ANC took over in South Africa, the communists would come in from Zimbabwe and other African countries and the West would lose their toehold in Africa against the communists.
You lived through it, so you would know better than I since I was an infant at the time. But that might explain it. Judi is still very much anticommunist, and articles support that, so that might go a long way towards explaining that.
On actual related stuff to Paul Fromm, I've been told that the groups he leads now are essentially defunct. You have any info on that?
I'm too young to remember apartheid, but my dad told me that a lot of the opposition to the anti-apartheid movement in the 1980s was due to the movement's association with communists and socialists, rather than actual support for apartheid
Yes, the same excuses were used in the 1930s by those who favoured appeasing Hiter- he was such a good anti-Communist after all.
I submit that the facts and neutrality of this article on Paul Fromm should be disputed. The article was largely edited by [speculation on name removed] who is known to be personally antagonistic towards anyone on the opposite end of the political spectrum. 65.244.158.6216:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Every editor has a POV, but that does not mean that no article is NPOV. What specific problems are there with this article? -Willmcw21:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I accidently added this into the wrong section, so I'm reposting it here.
Isn't "neo-nazi" an incorrect nomenclature to define Fromm?
Doesn't that breach the neutrality of the article, and border on libelous? I've noticed other wiki biographies of racists or "racialists", have a more fair and balanced approach. For example, David Duke's wiki page lists what his self styled title is (white nationalist), and what opposition or critics label him(white supremacist). Paul Fromm's article has neither side, it merely states an incorrect title / nomenclature as matter of fact, even though Fromm himself, and mainstream media have never labeled Fromm a Neo-Nazi, they've just stated he has ties with them.
The neutrality also seems to be compromised with the term "leader". If he is a neo-nazi leader, then there should be sources of people describing him as a leader who promotes the resurgence of a German Third Reich type government.
It is a fact he has represented white nationalists and neo-nazi type people, but acting as an interested party for alleged neo-nazis in tribunal hearings do not necessarily mean he is neo-nazi himself. Non-White Lawyers for the ACLU have represented the KKK in court, it doesn't mean they agree with the entire position of the KKK, all it means is they believe the party they represent deserve legal counsel as a right, and that preserving freedom of speech is important.
The "Neo-Nazi" label also has "fascist" or even violent overtones. Reading the sources on the biography show that Fromm's actions have not shown a provlicity for violence or a resurgence of fasicm. "Fascists" are usually against free speech, advocate restriction of rights of citizens, and are against the proliferation of mediums such as the internet. Paul Fromm's actions have not shown fascist tendencies, but quite the opposite, his organistions clearly have acted with preserving civil rights such as free expression, he is his self described "civil libertarian" (albeit with racial undertones), and therefore "civil libertarian" should be a title / nomenclature at least mentioned in the biography. Kleinback 10:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Kleinback10:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see there was a Stormfront posting about this just today. [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/wikipedia-labels-paul-fromm-neo-436627.html] I also see an article from last week in the Globe and Mail titled, "Ex-teacher loses licence over neo-Nazi ties" while the Toronto Sun says he's been "described as a "senior player" in the neo-Nazi movement in Canada".[2] I don't think that calling him a "civil libertarian" would be objective or neutral. ·:· Will Beback·:·17:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will, what neo-nazi group does Fromm lead? Is he member of the National Socialist Party of Canada? Are there any speeches by him where he introduces himself as a neo-nazi? Does he have swastika tattooed on his forehead? Are there any speeches where he promotes a 4th Reich? If not, than the title "neo-nazi" should not be thrown around as matter of fact, but as a point of view of his critics, such as Farber.
I found the quote, it reads:
"senior player on the neo-Nazi playing field in Canada"
Bernie Farber is not presenting a neutral POV, therefore I believe the biography still violates the neutrality parameters surrounding wikipedia biographies. Shouldn't the "neo-nazi" title be representative of Fromm's words or actions? If Fromm is a neo-nazi, there should be a quote of him espousing genocide of communists, poles and jews right right?
What would be more neutral, would be to list Fromm's self styled title, and then to list what critics such as Bernie Farber describe him.
P.S: An even better question is, what defines a person as a "neo-nazi". The reason I ask is because, if Fromm's actions and words are what define a neo-nazi, I'm suspecting "neo-nazi" will be added to a lot more biographies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleinback (talk • contribs) 21:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to debate here. Fromm is openly praises the Nationalist-Socialist Party of Canada, and has provided legal support for its leader. He is also heavily connected with various Klan factions in the U.S. For the plethora of examples, these being just two, his politics fit the category of "neo"-Nazi perfectly. Frank Pais (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would not say that neo-Nazi is a correct title for him at all, it is just that he has shared platforms with them as he is a Free Speech activist. He is on my list of friends on Facebook and his political views are 'Conservative' hence why I have written down that he is a 'hardline conservative' and he is not a member of any neo-Nazi party either. He is just a free speech activist, he will meet extremists or moderates. Apparently the Aryan Guard says that it has members whose political views are White Nationalist, National Socialist, Paleoconservative or Libertarian. His Facebook friends are from all different political backgrounds, so that is all I can gather. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.178.253 (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Fromm is not a neo-Nazi leader. There is nothing on his web site to indicate that he is, and he uses the red ensign not a swastika. He is associated with the stormfront web site, but it clearly states on that web site that they are white nationalists NOT neo-Nazis.
You can quote articles that falsely label him, but if major news sites make spelling errors, and they do, does that mean that their mistakes are actually the proper way to spell? Of course not. If an article relies completely on an unnamed source, should it be considered credible? No because you cannot verify the information. If he is a leader of a neo-Nazi group, they should be able to name that group, and if they cannot, they are either misusing words or they are being deceptive.
You can talk about who he associates with, but then you're talking about other people and if you're going to do that, you should be writing about them instead.
But let's be honest, for you, this is about making it sound as negative as possible rather than being accurate, right? The desired outcome is that people will read about Fromm here and not want to hear anything he has to say, correct? When you try to tell someone to look in one direction rather than the other, it tends to have the opposite effect. If he's as bad as you say, people will reach that conclusion when they hear what he has to say without your help.
You should either provide proof that he is a neo-Nazi leader or quote the way he identifies himself. Until you can do that, I am changing the opening sentence thay says he is a neo-Nazi to white nationalist. If you insist on undoing it without backing up your assertion with something credible, perhaps I should report you? 206.217.211.108 (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain yourself why you keep reverting Fromm's wiki by stating he's a neo-nazi leader?
I see you always try to write the most uplifting thing to say about people involved in Communist groups, but try to use words such as "neo-nazi leader" for people like Fromm, who has a history of being very anti-communist. Are all anti-communists neo-nazis to you?
Fromm doesn't call himself a neo-nazi, and he has never been a member of a neo-nazi group according to my research. Wikipedia biographies are supposed to be neutral remember, so please tell me what neo nazi group/party Fromm is the leader of. Are there neo-nazi conventions where they vote for a leader like they do for the communist party of Canada, or the Conservative party of Canada?
Is he a member or leader of the Nationalist-Socialist Party of Canada? Was he a member of the American Neo-nazi party or the Canadian neo-nazi party?
Example: If you're going to state matter of a fact somebody is a "democrat", wouldn't that person have to be a member of a the democratic party, or at least have stated they are a democrat on record? Would you write a wiki article about Hillary Clinton stating she's a republican leader?
Kleinback (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Fromm is not a neo-nazi. He is a conservative. He runs a free speech group(CAFE) and an immigration restrictionist group. He has neve never called for the extermination of Jews or anything of the like. I am removing neo-nazi from the beginning parapgraph. Someone calling him a neo-nazi from a newspaper doesn't make it true. Please use logic and reason instead of emotional hatred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RG415WBFA (talk • contribs) 17:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to debate here. Fromm is openly praises the Nationalist-Socialist Party of Canada, and has provided legal support for its leader. He is also heavily connected with various Klan factions in the U.S. For the plethora of examples, these being just two, his politics fit the category of "neo"-Nazi perfectly. Frank Pais (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to debate. Agreed. If Paul Fromm ain't a Neo-Nazi I don't know who is? If anything this article is too unbiased... I have been to some of their meetings as a sort of "willing convert," he is more Nazi than Hitler Canadaman1 (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listen to Fromm's "radio show" on April 24th (Hitler's Birthday) and you'll know he's a Nazi.
"There is nothing to debate here" - There is debate if other people are debating your position. I have done research on the Canadian right and far-right and I find that this article is heavily biased with some details that are simply false. If the editor of this article wishes to impose a particular point of view, he or she should provide readers with his/her name and credentials (assuming he/she has any). - Peter
Since when is obvious vandalism and POV edits considered to be grounds for legitimate disputes? In any case, where is the discussion happening with regard to how the entry should read? If there is a dispute I would have thought that a link to the discussion would have been provided. Frank Pais (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most people have points of view, including yourself. To minimize POV bias, Wikipedia counsels using neutral language as much as possible. Calling David Fromm a Nazi is hardly neutral. It is not done for the purpose of informing the reader. It is done for the purpose of stigmatizing someone you hate. Be honest with yourself. - Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.167.101.2 (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David Fromm? Who is that? I think you need to check the article you're commenting on. And POV? This has nothing to do with POV, except on the part of people who are ironically attempting to paint an admitted white supremacist and neo-Nazi organizer as a champion of democratic values. Neutral situations demand neutral language - Fromm is the farthest thing from neutral. Watering down unflattering facts is completely counter to maintaining a NPOV. Frank Pais (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Neutral situations demand neutral language" - Are you saying that neutral language applies only to neutral situations? That seems to me an incredible statement to make. You're talking like a control freak and not like a responsible Wikipedia editor. -Peter
I think it should be noted that all of the protests that this man has been a part of are extremely small. I saw the one in Victoria against the Tamils... it had about 5 people. I mean these are extemely sick people, some of them are under medical treatment. It's important that these ramblings of mostly pretty sick people are not interpreted strictly in political terms.Canadaman1 (talk) 09:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 3 external links on Paul Fromm (white supremacist). 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.
I created File:Aryan Guard with Paul Fromm 2009-03-22 (cropped).jpg and placed in the article body, outside of the infobox. But, another user added to the infobox, leaving it in two places. I feel it belongs in the body only. Whenever possible, we should have an image of just one person for a bio infobox. In this case, cropping to just get a single person would produce a very low-quality low-resolution photo. Also, this obviously isn't a posed image, and it doesn't have subject looking anywhere near the camera. Fromm isn't even closest to the camera, but noticeably further than two other people. Somebody with no idea what Fromm looks like, could think the guy with a camcorder is the subject. A bio infobox photo, should have the subject of the article be the primary, or at-least co-equal, subject of the photo. This is an event photo. It belongs in near the text that mentions the event (with a citation), along with a full caption, making clear which person he is. --Rob (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To explain my edit. Fromm is a White supremacist. The lead should reflect the body of the article, which says this. Also, we should not use Fromm's self-description on Twitter. Unless somebody's tweets are published in a reliable source, they shouldn't be mentioned in Wikipedia. --Rob (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg){kind=link}