Talk:Atomwaffen Division/Archive 1

Needed edit under Vasillios Pistolis
please change "beat up" => "assaulted" under the section Vasillios Pistolis. Thanks!


 * Yes check.svg Done aboideautalk 14:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit Dispute Between Users
User:Beyond My Ken and User:2601:143:8003:75F0:E9CD:7956:E581:CD93 are having an edit dispute. User:2601:143:8003:75F0:E9CD:7956:E581:CD93 is warned and reported to admins for edit warring. Please stop edit warring and discuss the problem here on the talk page and wait for community consensus before doing any edit. I value your cooperation. Cheers:) -- WikiAviator (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Infobox
I think changing the political infobox to a generic "organisation" one is of little merit. It is important to have the infobox section to describe this groups political position (far-right) and the ideologies it adheres to (Neo-Nazism, Anti-Semitism, etc). The whole basis of this group is politics. Grayfall's rationale is that having such an infobox "unduly legitimizes an obscure hate group"... but it isn't up to us to put our own POV as to what is a legitimate or illegitimate group. Under such rationale we could describe the American Democratic Party as a hate group, as they are sponsors of international terrorism (the overthrow and murder of Libyan leader Mummar Gaddafi) and under their rule killed people across the world using drone warfare. Is the United States itself a hate group? Many people across the world would concur. We should and do mention that the SPLC refers to this political group as a "hate group", but Wikipedia is not the SPLC, the article has to adhere to a NPOV. Claíomh Solais (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * A neo-Nazi organization is a hate group. "Political party" doesn't just mean they have a political position, it means something much more limited. Comparing this group of a few dozen people with zero actual political history to a political party that has participated in thousands of major elections is utterly absurd and non-neutral. It is not our job to present this obscure club in the terms some of its members would prefere, because neutrality doesn't mean false balance. Grayfell (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * (1) The problem is "hate group" is a subjective politicised epithet and thus a violation of NPOV which we must adhere to at all times. Neo-Nazism, Anti-Semitism, etc itself already covers objectively what this group is about without adding in unnecessary propaganda.


 * By attempting to turn the article into an Ode to the SPLC, instead of just presenting the facts as they are reported in press, it cheapens the article quality, making it look like a cheap liberal activist hit-piece. This group already condemns itself by its acts (or attempted acts). Effeminate liberal screeching only serves to make the group look "taboo" or "edgy".


 * (2) Not all political organisations are parliamentary democratic in basis. For example, in Ireland, Republican Sinn Féin and 32 County Sovereignty Movement are not electioneering groups but we still have infoboxes for them because they are political groups and the purpose of such an infobox is to provide information about their political position/ideological views, etc. All your change has done is to remove mention of their ideologies, position on the far-right and to add in the uninformative feel-good SPLCism "hate group" to the infobox. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a US organization, and in the US, a political party must register and follow specific regulations with the assumption that they will support a political candidate for office. This is common to many countries. In the US, this is done through the Federal Election Commission and through varies state-level entities such as the Secretary of state (U.S. state government). Many organizations advance a political position without being a party, such as political action committees, but these, also must follow specific regulations. Absolutely nothing about this article establishes or explains in any way how the Atomwaffen Division passes this fairly low hurdle. The American Nazi Party was a political party. This is not.
 * As for being a hate group, you've got your work cut out for you if you really think this isn't "a social group that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, nation, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other designated sector of society". The SPLC is a reliable source, and attempting to downplaying their extremist, fringe views, while spouting memes about "liberals", remains totally unpersuasive. "Effeminate liberal screeching"? Really? What do you think "effeminate" means? That attempt at an insult says a lot more about you than it does about me or the SPLC. Grayfell (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The change to "Infobox political party" seems like a non-starter to me. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Since there is agreement that this article is not neutral and has been written in the tone of propaganda, I have completely cleaned it up while leaving the facts of the matter. You cannot have tabloid journalist sources. Regular news is fine, all of those have been preserved. You cannot use wikipedia as a platform for name-calling. If you are describing the group using recently invented and pejorative terms without further explanation, you are writing propaganda, not an encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.62.146.11 (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion concerns the type of infobox being used. One editor requested a change, two more disagreed, so the page stayed the same. Neutrality and (from my reading) WP:OR concerns were raised, but again there is no mandate nor consensus to change the article.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. 73.62.146.11 misstates the facts: there is no agreement here that the article is "propaganda" or "pejorative", andno consensus of that kind has been established whatsoever. The IP's attempts to "fix" the article (and others) by skewing it against NPOV has ended up with their being blocked for disruptive editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Atomwaffen is Alt-Right?
I've looked at both citations that are meant to back up the statement that Atomwaffen is an Alt-Right group but the first source lists Atomwaffen as an extremist group "outside the alt right orbit" and the second source has no mention of the Alt-Right at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.92.74 (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

This illustrates the name calling issue with this article. You can't just say they are "alt-right", this word was just invented and there is no consensus to its meaning whatsoever. Since you're so desperate to shoehorn in the phrase, simply reference sources that have called them alt right and concede that the group itself denies affiliation with the alt right. In other words, stick to the facts and take your partisan politics war elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.62.146.11 (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added two verifiable sources and re-cited an existing source that describe the article subject as alt right. Also, you may want to take a look at Verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we present information based on what reliable sources say, and we do not synthesize based on our own beliefs. If you disagree with sources like Philadelphia Magazine and the Huffington Post grouping the Atomwaffen Division in with the alt right, then by all means request that we re-evaluate them as reliable sources.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * they never were, and consensus here in this discussion (3) agrees with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.177.226 (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Link to Hate Group?
Granted, a link to Atomwaffen is not 'Original Research", but it's less offensive than 'Original Research" about the Epistle of James? rem486 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rem486 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Credibility and objectivity
This article cites a Huffington Post article saying the alt-right is a loose association of white supremacists and fascists. This "fact" is highly disputed. The alt-right is anyone who is conservative but doesn't support the established conservative party in their country. This is the same crap as saying "republicans are racist" and a highly opinionated news source such aa Huffington Post that doesn't mention that the definition they state as fact is highly disputed (and rejected by the group it describes) isnt credible T`swift`rocks (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Labeling them "highly opinionated" doesn't make these sources wrong. Reliable sources link Atomwaffen Division to the alt-right, and that's all Wikipedia cares about. That said, perhaps you should re-think your definition. This definition is not shared by reliable sources, including many beyond just the Huffington Post. This connotation of white supremacy has been thoroughly discussed at talk:alt-right, and there are many additional sources at that article. Additionally, the term was popularized by Richard B. Spencer, who is indisputably a white nationalist. I would avoid using a term coined by a white nationalist for the specific purpose of making his white nationalist beliefs more appealing to a mainstream audience if your goal is to be 'credible'. Again: reliable sources link Atomwaffen Division to the alt-right, and that's all Wikipedia cares about. Grayfell (talk) 06:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Additionally, we don't use our own definitions, we have an article on the alt-right which explains what it is. Doug Weller  talk 11:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Iron March predecessor?
Firstly, Iron March wasn't a group, it was an internet forum. A few members of this forum created Atomwaffen Division. Iron March existed years after that until it was taken down late last year. Iron March isn't a predecessor. 85.164.238.62 (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Look up "Alisher Mukhitdinov", the founder of Iron March. Atomwaffen is an American group. Mukhitdinov is Russian, not American 85.164.238.62 (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Atomwaffen as "Satanist"
An IP editor is adamant about adding "Satanist" to the description of this organization, however the reports cited do not say that AW is Satanist, they report that other people -- that is, other alt-righter and neo-Nazis -- say that AW has a Satanism problem. This is not the same thing, and is not sufficient to describe them, as "Satanist" in our article, as no reliable source is actually calling them that.In all probability, the Satanist thing is a disinformation campaign designed to delegitimatize AW and put distance between it and the rest of the alt-right, but even if that's not the case, we need direct reporting from reliable sources saying that AW practices Satanism, or has an internal Satanism problem, not secondhand reports from biased original sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In the NY Times article, it did not state that another neo-Nazi had claimed that Atomwaffen Division is satanic. It stated that an intelligence analyst at the Southern Poverty Law Center had claimed so. 85.164.238.62 (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Jesus, Mary and Joseph, why do I have to spend my time on crap like this? The Times cited someone from SPLC, but the SPLC report is obviously based on what other alt-righters/neo-Nazis are saying about AW, including in one of their chat logs published by Pro-Publica. What that comes down to is that the ultimate source is neither facts uncovered by the Times or independenly-determined information generated by the SPLC, but is based totally on what other neo-Nazis say about AW.  In short, they are not a reliable source no matter how many media outlets repeat what they say, and "Satanism" is not going into the article until reliable sources report on the basis of their own investigation that AW had a Satanism "problem" (which, in any case, is not the same thing as the group believing in Satanism).Geez, our educational system! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I would strongly oppose stating any connection to Order of Nine Angles as a simple fact, especially in the lede. From sources, I'd say maybe a sentence or two on this in the body. As one of the SPLC sources mentions, the group's website was pushing Order of Nine Angles material since around the time of Russel's arrest, and this... philosophy for lack of a better word, has apparently become more central to their identity and behavior. Their entire shtick is transgressive extremist nonsense, so it's not exactly a stretch. The Daily Beast attributes this connection to an exodus in members, and disavowal by some other neo-Nazis, such as Andrew Anglin. Of course, in-fighting among hate groups is the norm, not the exception, but again, a couple of sentences seems acceptible, pending further sources. Grayfell (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Military members
Recent news article from ProPublica/Frontline:

Mainly about members in the military. Worth a look. Grayfell (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Minor change to Vasillios Pistolis
I have updated the bottom most section, regarding Vasillios Pistolis to indicate that he was also imprisoned after his court martial. There have also been articles stating that he has been officially removed from the United States Marine Corps, but all of the ones that I have found, redirect back to the ProPublica article from 20 Jun 2018. If an updated article with an official statement can be found, please address this as well. Sawta (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Terrorism
An editor is removing information from the article that Atomwaffen is (or was) a terrorist organization, which used terrorist methods. As far as I can tell, this information is sourced and should not be moved. Thoughts? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Vice straight up uses the word "terrorist" to describe the group and SPLC calls them "terroristic". The other sources in the lead also seem to agree that Atomwaffen's tactics and goals resemble those of designated terror groups, even if they don't use the term "terrorist" in so many words. clpo13(talk) 22:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My main problem with citation in your reversion is that you readded "Islamophobic," which is ridiculous, as they've even said that they prefer ISIS over the current government and praised Omar Mateen, so it absolutely requires a citation to make this claim, and also you'd probably need to use another term, such as anti-Islam, to avoid biased tone.


 * As for the terrorism part, I don't really care that much I guess. It's a loaded label, and therefore instills a point of view, especially when you couple it with a variety of other portions of the current version of the article, which states--as two separate motives--that Atomwaffen exists to overthrow the US Government via terrorism (as an explicit, standalone purpose) and to establish a Nazi state (apparently this is not the purpose of the other point) -- despite the fact terrorism is a method, not a purpose. It also states, in yet another motive, that Atomwaffen exists for terrorism against the United States...which is redundant, and also pushing it too far. Additionally, they aren't designated as a terrorist organization. I think "political movement" could be another okay description, but its political activities are non-notable, and have had far less effect than the hate they've brought on themselves and everyone who they can poke with a ten foot pole by killing innocents at a rate of about one per decade, which really isn't that notable as far as terror organizations go. It seems that being a militant organization should be a prerequisite for being a terrorist organization. Maybe "Neo-Nazi group that is well-known for killing five people" would be the best possible description. As you can tell, I don't even know what to say about this myself, other than the fact I don't like the current version, so it's not actually possible to come to a consensus with me precisely because I do not care about the specifics as long as the article doesn't have blatant violations of consensus everywhere. I don't really know what to say; I literally just copied "militant X organization" from the al-Qaeda page when I changed the description of Atomwaffen as a terrorist organization, but there's a lot of other ways to improve the article in this regard. Nuke (talk) 06:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Since the article doesn't say anything about the group being collectively Islamophobic, and I cannot find anything from a reliable source after a quick search which says so, I think you have a point, so I'm going to be WP:BOLD and remove "Islamophobic" from the infobox and the categories. It can certainly be restored if anyone can come with a specific citation from an RS that supports the contention that Atomwaffen in particular, and not the alt-right in general, is Islamophobic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, the United States does not have a procedure for designating domestic groups as "terrorists" the way they do for foreign and international groups. Since there is no formal process for designating domestic terrorist groups, any sources that refer to them as a terrorist group are unofficial. I'm also not seeing anything in the article that says any members of this group have been charged with terrorism crimes. If they have never been charged with any terrorism crimes, then "terrorist organization" may be the wrong term. Perhaps "criminal organization" would be more precise. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken, after every event which may have been a terrorist attack, authorities are careful to say whether it is or is not an act of terrorism, and if it is, whether it is an act of "domestic terrorism". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really what I was trying to say, but fine. So which specific acts by Atomwaffen have been designated by U.S. authorities as "terrorism"? Rreagan007 (talk) 06:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Red herring. My remark was to explain that your earlier comment was wrong.  As long as we have reliable sources that calls them terrorist, we're covered, it doesn't need to come from the authorities. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The SPLC is not a reliable source. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That issue has been discussed numerous times on the reliable sources noticeboard, and the consensus result of all those dsicussions is that the SPLC is a reliable source, whether you like it or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is totally absurd since they have been successfully sued for falsely labeling extremist organizations. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, the suing party didn't win the lawsuit in court, so the lawsuit was not "successful". The SPLC -- as with all intelligent organization -- recognized that it had made a mistake and took steps to rectify that error with a settlement.  Even the most reliable resource makes errors -- the question for us is: what do they do when they recognize those errors.  Unlike, for instance, those on the right wing, who simple double down on their false claims, the SPLC admitted error and corrected it.  That doesn't make them unreliable, that makes them even more reliable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a nice spin job, but the SPLC is a political advocacy organization that pushes a certain political agenda. This is not the first time they have made "mistakes" like this either. They even had the audacity to put Ben Carson on an extremist list. Doing something that insane destroys all credibility. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but right-wing talking points aren't a substitute for facts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

They haven't been formally recognized as a terrorist group by the US government. VICE is a left-leaning media organization according to it's own Wikipedia article. Terrorist isn't a label that you get to decide all on your own, it's decided by governments and lawmakers. Please don't use Wikipedia as your personal tool to libel those you dislike without consequences. Why not call them a violent extremist organization since that fits in with the source. No government has actually designated them as a terrorist organization nor has anyone successfully performed any such acts.

ISIL
The abbreviation for the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in use on Wikipedia is ISIL (see the article itself). It's not European, it's house style. See also names of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (with sources), substantiating that ISIS [sic] is widespread in British usage and that ISIL is reasonably common in American usage, so the argument "American subject, American English" is a red herring. I should also point out that my edit pipes directly to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, avoiding the redirect. The difference of one letter is not a subject worth edit-warring over (either for me or you); small as it was, my edit was an improvement, however. Q·L·1968 ☿ 21:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * wrote on my talk page:

"Regarding your recent edits to Atomwaffen Division: the guideline you seem to be unaware of in this case, is the one concerning 'strong national ties to a topic', which is why U.S. English is the right choice, here. Please see MOS:TIES. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)"
 * This isn't a question of US English at all. See above. "ISIS" isn't American English and "ISIL" isn't non-American. Why are you two making a big deal of this? It's ISIL all over the place on Wikipedia. Q·L·1968 ☿ 03:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it very much is. While there may be some outliers on either side, the American media and government use "ISIS" almost exclusively, while "ISIL" is used elsewhere and is almost unknown in the US. That other articles use "ISIL" could be because they're written in other varieties of English than Amer4ican English, or could just be an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  Whichever, "ISIS" is proper for this article, written in American English, about an American subject.The "big deal" here is being made by you, attempting to change "ISIS", which has been in the article since its very first version, written on 30 July 2017. . Further, two of the sources used to source that information also use "ISIS" (the third doesn't mention the Islamic State). Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Q·L·1968, You already know my position, I think, because you quoted it. To extend and clarify: MOS:TIES applies to every word in the article, not just the title, thus the choice between the two terms is governed by MOS:TIES as well.  Therefore, it's "ISIS" here, for the same reason that we use organization and not organisation in the first sentence.
 * In this case, we should follow WP:BRD: you made a bold change, you were reverted, now we're discussing it. This is the proper procedure.  You are welcome to seek consensus for your point of view here, but while the discussion is underway, please leave the term in its current form. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's leave "European" out of this - there's no such language, or perhaps Americans are not aware of this. In France it's État islamique (EI, or more usually, Daech), in Germany it's Islamische Staat (IS or Daesch), in Italy it's Stato Islamico (SI or Daesh). I'm not aware of any widespread use of 4 initials other than in English. We need only be concerned with English language usage, and there are two variants: ISIS and ISIL, each used predominantly in the UK and US respectively. Possible solution: put "ISIL/ISIS" and that way all readers of English will be on the right track. ( I am somewhat bemused that anyone would consider that ISIS has "strong national ties to" the US. I know what was meant, that Atomwaffen Division has the strong ties, but....) Emeraude (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Don't be a smart-aleck. You've read TIES and you know that it is connected to the topic of the article, and as you said, you "know what was meant". You are absolutely corrrect: there are two variants, one used predominantly in the UK and one used predominantly in the US.  We should completely ignore the former, and use the one predominantly used in the US here, because the title of the article is "Atomwaffen Division" which has strong national ties to the US. I would not be in favor of using a word-pair combo, of the type you suggested. By that logic, someone could insist on having "organization/organisation" in the first sentence as well; pretty ridiculous, and of course against the guideline, just as "ISIL/ISIS" or "flavour/flavour" or "programme/program" would be.   Mathglot (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, because it is question of naming, not spelling. User:Beyond My Ken makes a good point on his |user page: "Wikipedia exists for the people who use it or who will potentially use it, not for the people who edit it." That is a sound principle. While UK English readers can cope with US spellings, and vice-versa, the use of different names (e.g. trunk/boot, hood/bonnet, pants/trousers) is not always so easy and they deserve, somewhere in an article, an indication of this. Emeraude (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * MOS:TIES is laudable, but it has no application here, because "ISIL" is not un-American or unfamiliar to users of American English. President Barack Obama and most of his administration used it; Wikipedia has opted for it for the same reason that the Obama administration did, namely that "Levant" is the better translation for "ash-Sham". Conversely, "ISIS" is widely used in UK media (The Guardian, BBC World Service, etc.). However, since I'm apparently not going to convince anybody of that fact, how about using "Islamic State group" or "so-called Islamic State" or something like that instead of "ISIS" or "ISIL"? Q·L·1968 ☿ 19:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "ISIL" is very much unfamiliar to Americans, who hear almost exclusively "ISIS". The question of which is a "better" acronym is irrelevant in this context. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, so why don't we duck that issue and not use an acronym here at all? How about " the Islamic State group " instead? Q·L·1968 ☿ 23:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, that, also, is almost completely unfamiliar. Just let it go, please, the consensus here is against you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)