Talk:Nordic Resistance Movement/Archives/2023 1

Terror organisation
Even though Left-wing and muslim organisations are much closer to the definition of what most regard as terrorists organisations those are not labeled as such by wiki. This is inconsistent and therefore the label terrorist organisation should be removed or terrorist organisation prefixed to all those other organisations as well including BLM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.250.97.74 (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * NMR has openly taken responsibility for those terrorist acts. For a week they terrified a small Jewish Comunity in Umeå, they bombed a refuge center all while NMR claimed responsibility. They are a terror organization. They are as much a terror organization as Revolutionary Front or Antifa. They use violence as a political tool, and most often when someone does that... they are often a terrorist. They terrify people til's their silence. BLM's riot is often violent but those are riots, not coordinated attacks. --Der under Smurf (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Do you have any citation for the NRM claiming responsibility? 2001:1BA8:120C:D700:5E2A:93E6:8546:53B5 (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Combine?
Perhaps the articles about the Swedish Resistance Movement, Finnish Resistance Movement and Norwegian Resistance Movement should be combined. At least the Finnish organization is obviously subservient to the Swedish organization. Opfinland (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge from Neo-Nazi attack in Kärrtorp 2013
Neo-Nazi attack in Kärrtorp 2013 is a brief article that describes the actions of this group. I think it could probably be easily merged into this article. Relevant guidelines would include WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: Excellent idea. Despite the news coverage, Neo-Nazi attack in Kärrtorp 2013 is not independently notable (WP:NOTNEWS). --Randykitty (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Event has not received coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 05:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

help
Error can somone please move this to original to Nordic Resistance Movement? 95.128.118.58 (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * done. Take care with that move button! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nordic Resistance Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090928111207/http://www.tv8.se:80/adaktusson/adaktusson-fortsaetter-granskningen-av-nazisterna-i-svenska-motstandsroerelsen to http://www.tv8.se/adaktusson/adaktusson-fortsaetter-granskningen-av-nazisterna-i-svenska-motstandsroerelsen

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External link number 2 is dead. Someone with skills should fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.64.234 (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge from Finnish Resistance Movement
Article merged: See old talk-page here

I have merged the article of Finnish branch of this organization into this article as there is no substantial difference in these two articles other than the part listing the violent incidences where Finnish branch has been a party of. Country branches are exact copies of the parent organization and there is no reason to have individual articles at the moment. ViperFace (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Ideologies
@User:Dannis243 I have reverted your edit. See their 9-point program where the point 3 specifically states: "Create a Nordic self-sufficient state with a common military, common currency and central bank, as well as common overarching laws." Their goal is the most extreme form of Pan-Scandinavianism, a single state consisting of current — Preceding unsigned comment added by ViperFace (talk • contribs) 14:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources about NRM as a party
It's clearly a party. I'm pressed for time because of Christmas and job committments, but I'll put some WP:RS here for future use by me or others. Sorry, but they're all in Swedish.
 * 1) TV channel calls them a "party"
 * 2) They are registered as a party with the Swedish Election Authority (seek "Nordiska motståndsrörelsen")
 * 3) A member (Per Öberg) has a seat in Ludvika municipality, but as a write-in candidate on a Sweden Democrats mandate. Sjö (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Item 3 suggests that they are NOT a party, as the term is usually understood; members of parties do not typically run for office as members of another party. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * He didn't. The Sweden Democrats won more seats than they had candidates on the ballot in that municipality. The Swedish election law allowed anyone to write any name on their ballot. A couple of people (who may or may not be from NRM)did that and gave Öberg a seat in the municipal council. The source was not to show that NRM is a party, but more as a comment on the statement that NRM has a seat. NRM doesn't, it's SD that has the seat.
 * Re: the "party" designation, there are several reliable sources calling them a party, but I think that the official registration for election would be enough.
 * Another thing. There are a number of unreliable sources in the article right now. Among the the Knights Templar Europe, the Daily Mail and various right-wing sources that should be avioded for statements of fact, but can be acceptabele as sources for what the organization says about itself. I don't support the uncritical restoration of those sources. Sjö (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

You people are just unable to read, aren't you? http://www.esisc.org/publications/briefings/radicalization-polarization-and-xenophobia-the-growing-influence-of-the-nordic-resistance-movement-in-sweden-and-finland <- "[...] Indeed, since 2015 the NRM has been a registered political party in Sweden." https://www.dn.se/nyheter/politik/kupp-ger-nazister-sd-mandat/ <- When NRM got a seat in Ludvika. Or see the multiple videos were the Nordic Resistance Movement is represented on a municipality council? (They have 2 seats. One in Borlänge, another in Ludvika. The following videos are from Ludvika, with NRM's spokesman, legal advisor and parliamentary leader - Pär Öberg - is sitting on the Ludvika Municipality Council) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQDk192pT10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-VRZwxcHU4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKcM1IPt9cY It's bad enough that you're deciding to remove this info from the article, but it's even worse that you're removing just about 50% of the page (most of which is confirmed correct information), such as the leaders, founding years, sites, its activity in Norway, its headquarters (They are NOT headquartered in Stockholm. They are headquarted in Grängesberg), its key ideologies (such as Pan-Nordism), its banning date in Finland, its secretary, its merging organizations, its political position, its activity in Denmark and Iceland (though I am by no means saying it has been established in these countries), its recent activity (most notably its demonstrations), the list just goes on and on and on. GaiusoftheJulii (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm as surprised as GaiusoftheJulii that an experienced editor removes sourced information. There is no doubt that it's registered as a party and that there are reliable sources calling it a party to mention a few. However, the party has also been described as the "parliamentary branch" of the movement, a description also used by the NRM . A reasonable compromise is IMO to use the phrasing from the Swedish article that says "a far-right Nordic militant nazi organisation and a political party". I think, with that change and a source for Grängesberg , GaiusoftheJulii's edits should be restored. Sjö (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The only question here is about which infobox is more appropriate to use. The NRM operates in 5 countries, and is only a registered politicial party in one of them.  That means that "infobox organization" is the more appropriate infobox than "infobox political party".  If GofJ wants to re-add the information using the correct infobox, I have no objection, but he needs to stop changing the infobox to one which is misleading in regards to the NRM as a whole. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have restored the edits with the exception of the infobox. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

There could be two infoboxes on top of eachother, one for the organization itself, and another for the party. Looking at past revisions, it was like this before (with the exception of the mistake that both of these were party infoboxes) GaiusoftheJulii (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A party is an organisation, so one, general infobox "Organisation" is better suited for the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Redirect of Simon Lindberg
I restored the redirect of Simon Lindberg to this article with this edit. The subject is not independently notable of his org; hence the redirect. In addition, the article was expanded from a redirect by a banned sock: Special:Contributions/WikiHeathen. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Objection to the usage of the term "National Socialist" as it relates to NPOV and encyclopedic tone
"National Socialist" in reference to neo-Nazism seems to be a politically correct version for the name used primarily and perhaps exclusively by actual neo-Nazis and subscribers of closely related ideologies like national anarchism. The tone reminds me of the speech of the various neo-Nazis that I've encountered online rather than an encyclopedia, and that is not what WP wants in an article (see doublespeak and jargon). This page appears to be heavily written by a legitimate member of the Nordic Resistance Movement under several confirmed sockpuppets, so my concerns aren't necessarily unwarranted here. It could also potentially inhibit the reader's understanding unnecessarily, as not everybody knows the actual meaning of National Socialism.

As an alternative, we could use the term "neo-Nazi" instead: it doesn't seem like using that term is considered a breach of NPOV (it could be considered to be anti-Nazi because of its historical origins, but apparently not to a great enough deal that it's disallowed), as it can be found in the lead sections of Unite the Right rally where it describes some protesters as neo-Nazis, Metapedia in the quote "which contains far-right, identitarian ... and neo-Nazi points of view", as well as Don Black § Stormfront, and I'm sure in many other articles as well. Would it therefore be appropriate to replace "National Socialist" and its variations with "neo-Nazi", "Nazi", or some other word with less positive or sympathetic connotations? Snorepion (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to replacing "National Socialism" with "Neo-Nazism" is most circumstances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's neo-nazism as it's after 1945. // Liftarn (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Even National Socialism is a redirect to Nazism, so definitely. Doug Weller  talk 08:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And Nazism points to the main article Neo-Nazism which shows that neo-Nazism is the preferred term on Wikipedia for the movements that are active today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjö (talk • contribs) 04:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Would it not be a better idea to have their position on the political possition be "Far-right to Alt-right" or "Alt-right to Neo-nazisem" instead of just "Far-right"? --Los Perros pueden Cocinar (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

HTTPS
The problem with using HTTPS is that it messes up the formatting of websites. 85.167.120.156 (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You should address this concern to the editor making the change from http to https. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Ing rune and reliable sources
The Ing rune was recently added to the infobox, and i asked for a citation as I have only ever seen their logo referred to as the Týr or Tyr rune. Even in articles about the Tyr rune in their logo the Ing rune isn't mentioned and the Ing rune isn't in Expo's list of far-right symbols.

However, I found on NRM's website Nordfront an article that has a quote from their handbook: "Den samlade symbolen för Nordiska motståndsrörelsen är Riksrunan (symbolen för det nya Nordiska riket). Symbolen består av en Tyrruna och en Ingruna." (The common symbol for the Nordic Resistance Movement is the Realm rune (the symbol of the new Nordic realm). The symbol is comprised of a Tyr rune and an Ing rune.)

Considering that Nordfront is a self-published source, is that link considered a reliable source for the runes in the logo? Sjö (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If the Nordfront is in some way connected to the NRM, then its statements about (essentially) itself are usable, although nothing else from it would be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Sjö (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Only Northern European?
The Wikipedia article says they follow  a  Romanian,  Corneliu Codreanu. That is not northern european. Someone explain please. 47.201.190.53 (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It does not say that they "follow him", it says that they have praised his writings. Do you imagine that they would only pay attention to the writings and ideologies of northern Europeans? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Their nine points  use  this  wording: of Northern European or of closely related descent.47.201.190.53 (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the question you asked. nor is Romanian in any respect "closely related" to "Northern European", so I don't have a clue what you're on about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * All Europeans are  closely  related. Read  William Pierce he said it, and that explains why the NRM follows  Codreanu. 47.201.190.53 (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * William Pierce is an expert on nothing. Your prejudices are exposed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am  not  defending  Pierce,  I  am  simply  saying  that  this  is  the  context  in which  the  NRM  uses  the  term  of  closely  related descent.47.201.190.53 (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Status in Finland?
I was left a bit unclear on this group's status in Finland. The article says twice that it was banned and the ban was appealed, but there's no mention as to whether the appeals were successful or not. My impression is that they were and that the group is not banned any more, but I didn't want to make any changes without checking here. 46.233.112.13 (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You shouldn;t add that information unless you have a citation from a reliable source to support it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The verdict has been appealed to the Supreme Court of Finland. The court hasn't decided yet if they will hear the case. This means that as of now the ban on NRM isn't in place. Sjö (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait, if the ban wasn't overturned, and the Supreme Court is deciding whether to hear the case, doesn't that mean that the ban is in place? That's how it works in the American legal system, anyway.  Or did lower courts grant the appeal? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As the HBL source "The NRM can demonstrate in public..." says, the appeal means that for the NRM the ban isn't in place. Sjö (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But why is that? There appears to be a hole in the progression of the story. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * IANAL, but in Finland, as a rule judgements can't be acted on until they win legal force (i.e. can't be appealed anymore) according to the Finnish Förvaltningslagen in Swedish/Hallintolaki in Finnish. This rule can be set aside by provisions in other laws. Sjö (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks for that information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Swedish page about Simon Lindberg redirects here
Shouldn't there be a separate article on Lindberg? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melaneas (talk • contribs) 14:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You know what is NORDFRONT.SE
it's a neo nazi group in sweden Well I hope it will be banned neo nazi group.- Samiwikia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samiwikia (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nordfront.se is the Swedish version of the NRM's online newspaper. It should not be mistaken for a separate far-right organization. Sjö (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Allies in infobox
There is a list of allies but no sources that support any alliance. IMO "allies" apply in a military conflict or when there is a formal agreement, e.g. a´n agreement of confidence and supply. Sharing an ideology should not count as an alliance, and it looks like all of those listed are not even neo-nazi organization. I will remove the entire list and hope that it will not be restored unless there are sources. Sjö (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not feel that adding a source for each was necessary in the infobox as they are explained in the article (most in the Finnish section I worked on), but I will add sources and restore it then.RKT7789 (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that if you have sources that show that they are allies. IMO e.g. appearing on the same website, selling books promoting something or having some members in common does not mean that two organizations are allies. Sjö (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect and unclear citation
Concerning the text “The NRM has been described as a terrorist organization due to their aim of abolishing democracy along with their paramilitary activities, weapons caches and connections to proscribed terrorist organizations such as the Russian Imperial Movement and National Action.[22][23][24]” it is unclear which citation is associated with which of the claim. 23 and 24 does not make these claims, and 22 is behind a pay-wall so I have not read it, but from the little that is seen without paying, it does not address any of these claims. 2001:1BA8:120C:D700:5E2A:93E6:8546:53B5 (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * " but from the little that is seen without paying, it does not address any of these claims."
 * Really? the title of the article is "Terrorist researchers: "NMR definitely a terrorist group" and further states Swedish National Defense College considers it a terrorist organization. 23 also talks in length about NRM terrorism contacts and 22 talks about their contacts with the RIM that has been officially declared a terrorist organization. If these are not sufficient, NRM has been called to be banned as a terrorist organization by multiple elected representatives both in Scandinavia and USA (see: "Biden administration pressed by lawmaker to label white supremacists overseas as terrorists", "Neo-Nazis Must Go On Terror Blacklist, House Democrats Demand").RKT7789 (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I meant the claims about “paramilitary activities, weapons caches ...”, not being described as a terrorit organization. 2001:1BA8:120C:D700:5E2A:93E6:8546:53B5 (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * They're likewise described in 22 and 24.RKT7789 (talk) 06:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have removed the text "and connections to organizations such as the Russian Imperial Movement, National Action and Azov Battalion" together with the YLE and BBC refs. YLE writes about connected organizations that are labeled "terrorist", e.g. the National Action, but neither the YLE nor the BBC source call the NRM a terrorist organization. Combining the ETC source, that does say the NRM is a terrorist organization, with the organizations mentioned in the YLE source and saying that the NRM is "described as a terrorist organization due to their ... connections to organizations such as..." is pure WP:SYNTH. The BBC source is weak; it is a short paragraph in an article about a Russian nationalist. The article calls the 2017 bombings "terrorist attacks" and the perpetrators "terrorists" but do not call the NRM itself terrorist. It is relevant the the NRM did not claim responsibility and that the perpetrators were not sentenced for terrorism.
 * The ETC source remains, and I have added an archive link so you can read it. You will notice that while Magnus Ranstorp calls the NRM a terrorist organization, Daniel Poohl disagrees. That is why I changed the wording to mention Ranstorp. Sjö (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Very (3+ years) outdated parts.

 * Haakon Forwald has not been the leader of the Norwegian branch for three years, since he dropped out for the splinter group Nordisk styrka (Nordic strength). This is well reported and it already says so on his biography. It should be updated and the new leader should be listed.


 * Further, the group is established in Denmark, that should be added.


 * I also think we need to remove terms like "Swedish resistance movement" and "Norwegian resistance movement". As the leader Simon Lindberg writes :
 * "When a Finnish comrade joins the organization, he does not join the Finnish resistance movement but the Finnish branch of the Nordic resistance movement. When a Norwegian goes out and represents the organization in the media, he does not do so in the name of the Norwegian Resistance Movement, but in the name of the Norwegian branch of the Nordic Resistance Movement." Mårtensås (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC) Mårtensås (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Flag of CasaPound.svg

Satanism?
First of all, the ONA footnote is simply wrong. The Temple of the Black Light/Misanthropic Luciferian Order is not an O9A current. There may be parallels but the differences are substantial. The MLO’s anti-cosmic Satanism rejects life and the cosmos as a whole as the term implies (obviously) but doesn’t dabble in politics like the Order of Nine Angles and Forwald after leaving the MLO in favor of paganism. The article lacks information on the NRM’s alleged connection to Satanism and therefore any good reasons for Category:Crimes involving Satanism or the occult and Category:Satanism and Nazism. The latter was recently removed from the article on Forwald for obvious reasons. --2003:F5:FF1C:E900:A556:9187:52D3:607B (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Various inaccurate/unfounded claims removed
Reason for removal: 46.212.114.99 (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Allies: Some claimed alliances seem to be based solely on a member from organization X attending an event at organization Y or members of X and Y both attending event Z, while in fact NRM is not even on friendly terms with the Alliance party leader, for example.
 * Factions/Accelerationism: No strong evidence or sources supporting the claim that NRM contains a significant Accelerationist faction.
 * Factions/ONA Satanism: This is definitely not the case. Covering a person or group in a published article does not mean being affiliated with said person or group, and a single ex-member who used to be a Satanist long ago does not make up a faction.
 * Factions/Esoteric Nazism: Again, no evidence or sources.
 * Aim of abolishing democracy: This is contrary to numerous statements made by the organization itself, and has been officially refuted. For example, one of the organization's stated goals is to "strengthen democracy". This claim rather seems to stem from their expressed critical views on current electoral processes.
 * Connections to terrorist organization National Action: No good evidence to suggest a connection of the sort that would warrant branding NRM a terrorist organization. National Action also seems to be terrorist by statute only, not having actually committed or considered committing acts of terrorism and therefore not what most people outside the UK would consider terrorists.


 * @Doug Weller, care to explain how my comments above constitute "original research" any more than the disputed blatantly non-sourced content? Even in the instances where sources are given, they either do not support the conclusion made in the article or they are themselves not suitable sources (for example, opinion pieces written by their opponents or articles written by persons who cannot possibly have subject matter knowledge and who do not support their claims in any way that a reasonable person would find satisfactory). In my opinion, it is silly to include claims that are widely known to be ridiculously false or that are easily shown to be false, even if stated on some web page, especially in the face of authoritative primary sources saying otherwise. Much of this (supposed allies, Satanism) has been discussed before, with no attempt being made to justify the inclusion of these spurious claims on the page. 46.212.114.99 (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It might have been more sensible of me to have put my post on this page, rather than on the IP's usertalk. Since they have answered me below, and I agree with them about the best place for discussion, I've copied my own post of a couple of days ago, that they are replying to, here. Bishonen &#124; tålk 16:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC).
 * Hi, IP user. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable secondary sources, not on your own interpretations of primary sources, such as these things you say on Talk:Nordic Resistance Movement: "Some claimed alliances seem to be based solely on a member from organization X attending an event at organization Y or members of X and Y both attending event Z, while in fact NRM is not even on friendly terms with the Alliance party leader, for example", and "National Action also seems to be terrorist by statute only, not having actually committed or considered committing acts of terrorism". You can only use your own research if you are a published authority on the subject (and in that case, you need to refer to your publications as sources). This is what our policy against original research means, which Doug Weller alluded to in the edit summary when he reverted you. Nor are our articles based on statements by organizations about themselves, such as "Aim of abolishing democracy: This is contrary to numerous statements made by the organization itself, and has been officially refuted." If articles were based on the manifestos of organizations themselves, all political organizations would surprisingly be democratic, benevolent, science-based, and non-racist! That is why we use independent secondary sources only. Please adhere to Wikipedia's policies in your editing. Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC).
 * Actually I almost need to thank IP, I took a closer look at the page and noticed NRM's website quoted half a dozen times on the page. I swiftly replaced the questionable sources.RKT7789 (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * for example, opinion pieces written by their opponents
 * As opposed to what, pro-Nazi sources? Wouldn't any "reasonable person" oppose NRM? RKT7789 (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As opposed to neutral, non-political sources, obviously. A reasonable argument is one where conclusions follow logically from premises that are themselves true. Are you suggesting that it's impossible to write an objective article where one doesn't make up facts for the sake of either advertising or ridiculing a person or organization, or maybe that it is even desirable to include misinformation if it serves some supposed greater good? This is the kind of article authorship that makes Wikipedia look amateurish and why people are inclined not to take the site seriosuly.
 * No one living here up north would ever think of associating NRM with Satanism, the only source being an obscure unconvincing inference buried deep within an American article about some unrelated topic.
 * @Bishonen, I get what you are saying, my point is that the content in question is itself a mix of original research and other poorly sourced statements which have already been disputed numerous times by several people here. Although articles should not directly include original research, this certainly does not preclude someone from exercising sound judgment when evaluating someone else's supposed research for inclusion. The editing policy also does not say that primary sources must be completely disregarded, it only bans the inclusion of personal interpretations in the article text. Statements made by an organization about their own official stance on a subject, as opposed to generic descriptive terms such as "benevolent" or "science-based", should in most cases be regarded as a reliable and authoritative source in the absence of any contradictory evidence. Some random person on the internet claiming that NRM wants to abolish democracy is, on the other hand, not a reliable source of fact. It is especially absurd to regard statements made by organizations about their political enemies as an acceptable factual source while disregarding statements organizations make about themselves.
 * A secondary source necessarily analyses one or more primary sources and provides an argument that leads to a conclusion. Mere statements of the form "X [see link Y]" where X in no way follows from Y, or "X, because I consider myself an expert" are not grounds for citing the source in which they appear as documentation of X. If an objective review taking into account extant facts strongly suggests that a statement is unfounded, it is better to be on the safe side and not include the statement.
 * This official statement makes it clear that NRM is not allied with the Alliance party, and is certainly more authoritative than the inferences drawn by "Anti-racist centre": [] The article also claims that it is simultaneously allied with both Azov and the Russian Imperial Movement, based on very dubious reasoning.
 * As for whether National Action is a terrorist organization, pointing out undisputed known facts such as the absence of any terrorist acts or plots is not original research. No one claims they have committed terrorism, at least not that I could find. This is just a question of what descriptive language to use. To most average readers, a terrorist organization is one who is in the business of committing terrorism. In this case, it means something a bit different, akin to calling someone "gay" or a "bastard", and a qualifier is therefore needed for clarification. If they are indeed literal terrorists, it should be backed up with a source. 46.212.114.99 (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As opposed to neutral, non-political sources, obviously.
 * What would you consider a reliable, "non-political" source? Like "not against nazism, not for it either"? You can't really sit on the fence on the Nazi issue, either you're for it or against it. I would be very curious to see these "neutral on NRM" sources.RKT7789 (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not my job to find sources to back up someone else's claims. If no sources can be found, then the claim probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It should be obvious what I mean by non-political; something that isn't an opinionated rant written by an opponent. People who are emotionally invested in taking down someone are not appropriate sources. When writing about controversial people, events and organizations one has to be extra careful with presenting biased statements as fact. If one isn't sure that a statement is true, then the article should not give the impression that it's a proven fact.
 * Judging by your profile page, you are an opposing political activist. Wikipedia policy strongly discourages the editing of articles by people who have a conflict of interest, for example someone who is an employee of the subject of an article or its competitor or opponent. You have recently added a section with false information which I assume to be motivated by your dislike of NRM, where you try to make a bogus connection with Russians by claiming some random store owner as the Norwegian NRM leader. By doing so, you hurt Wikipedia's reputation and cost its owners money, so might want to consider removing it. 46.212.114.99 (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Curious of you to think so since NRM admits he's one as well: https://www.frihetskamp.net/yan-petrovskiy-pagrepet-skal-utvises-fra-norge/ RKT7789 (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, you might benefit from reading NONAZIS, PROFRINGE and YESBIAS. Wikipedia isn't "neutral", we're against Nazis.RKT7789 (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wrong, the article you linked says no such thing - it says member, not a leader or the leader. Presumably, their website staff would be aware of who is a/the leader, and a leader would most likely have been denoted with his proper rank or role title within the organization. Because of this, I really don't see the connection as notable enough to warrant mention. (In retrospect, after writing this I have found sources confirming that there was indeed a legit connection with RIM. Wouldn't have thought it from the Wikipedia article, though, and from what I can tell it is no longer the case nowadays.)
 * The second link regards editors, not sources, and the third is about the promotion of fringe ideas, so I fail to see the relevance. Would I quote a flat earther in an article about General Relativity? Absolutely not. Would I trust the same flat earther to give an accurate statement of his own name, occupation, hobbies, interests and who his wife and kids are, over some random other person? I don't see why I shouldn't. We are not discussing the merits of NRM's beliefs or quoting them for facts about World War II, this is about basic trivia about who make up the organization, who runs it, what their stated aims are and how they are connected with others. The linked policies do not imply that articles on Nazis should be exempt from the policies on COI editing, POV editing, coatrack articles, reputable sources or other policies.
 * Let me clarify, when I say opponent I do not mean someone who merely disagrees with an idea - it would be correct that it is hard to find someone who doesn't disagree with a fringe idea without also being a proponent of said idea, but it is also a fact that most publications are not actively engaged in a violent conflict with people they are writing about, or define themselves as anti-something when asked to describe who they are - I hope this gets across what is meant by neutral and non-neutral sources.
 * As for the last link, note the difference between non-neutral facts or opinions versus biased research or presenting opinion as fact. A biased source may choose to set aside basic methodical principles in journalism or science and choose to publicize statements that maximize the extent to which it helps promote a message, rather than presenting information that has any basis for being true. Facts are what they are, but they should be truthful and supported by reliable evidence. Conjecture does not equal fact. To be more precise, problems with the sources used in this article include the following:
 * [3] (CTC Sentinel): Although presumably a reputable journal, the inference of a connection with O9A is a major leap of logic. Either way, the information would be out of date, as there is no longer a Finnish branch, and the founder of the Norwegian branch is no longer with the organization.
 * [11] (C-REX): Does not cite evidence or sources.
 * [12] is a duplicate of [3].
 * [13] (Dangerous Organizations and bad actors): It is unclear whether the given facts meet the standard of what most would consider a "close affiliation". The paper from which many of these statements are sourced, [], seems to be of the opinion that relations have subsided and that they are currently connected only indirectly through Der Dritte Weg.
 * [14] (Antirasistisk): Does not cite evidence or sources that the photographed people were members of NRM, or more importantly, what they were doing at the venue - they do run their own news outlet, so they could just as well have been researching a story, for example, like the person who took their picture. Not an appropriate source anyway due to conflict of interest. Besides, does not quite state the conclusion given in the article.
 * [119] (Knut Gigstad): Does not cite evidence or sources, also a schoolkid project is not a reputable source.
 * As for paramilitary activities and weapons caches, I have still not found where this supposedly comes from - it would presumably have been on the news somewhere? Same with abolition of democracy, a quick google search in Norwegian turns up nothing that leads anywhere.
 * Anyway, I am not going to tell Wikipedia staff what you can and can't do with your own website, just giving my two cents on source criticism, and saying it obviously doesn't look good when the articles are like this, and I don't mean this as a personal attack on anyone. 46.212.114.99 (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Norræna hægri öfgahópa
Norræna hægri öfgahópa means "Nordic right-wing extremist groups", it does not NRM. While NRM is the most prominent one, there are other groups and unless there is a source for NRM the section I removed is WP:SYNTH. If they did belong to NRM it should be easy to find a RS. Sjö (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)