Talk:National Socialist Network/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notability

Evidence in cited sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] ~Kvng (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thornbury attack

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

---

@202.169.114.130: Why do you believe the article citing the events at Thornbury is unrelated and that the claims are unsourced? AndreyKva (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@AndreyKva, the material is clearly sourced, the news.com.au citation clearly refers to NSN repeatedly, including them showing up at Cafe Gummo. Do you have any other sources from mainstream media that refer to NSN being their to solidify this material? TarnishedPath^talk 12:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath, I've reached out to White Rose Society asking for more substantial evidence. Will respond if they get back. AndreyKva (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@AndreyKva, I'm not necessarily talking about material from them. Did you see this reported about elsewhere? TarnishedPath^talk 12:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath, yes. Here: https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/media-holds-power-to-end-neo-nazi-threat,17926 AndreyKva (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 202.169.114.130 (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@202.169.114.130, I suggest you self revert now you've violated WP:3RR. TarnishedPath^talk 13:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

how about you stop posting unrelated stuff and have some charity. wikipedia is not a place for communists to downbeat their enemies. we are purely focused on facts, not slander 202.169.114.130 (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@AndreyKva, I found a Socialist Alternative source which is better than the Tanuki one (because it is in a less editorial voice) by doing a google search for ("Cafe Gummo" and "National Socialist Network") which gave me the this result. Bit of advise, find stuff that is presented in a factual manner as much as you can. Sources that are opinion or are editorial voice can be used on occasion but you need to clearly state that they are the opinions of the author. PS, Google is your friend if you learn how to use booleans. TarnishedPath^talk 14:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

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

number of attendees on 26/jan/2024

just wondering why the number is being removed, it seems like an important fact about how these groups are growing and evolving JoyfulComrade (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

A good place to start would be providing reliable sources stating the number. GraziePrego (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Not everything that is detailed in a source needs to be detailed in this article. To do so would be WP:UNDUE. We need to make decisions as editors about what to include and not what to include. When it comes to information that neo-Nazis may seek to use for propaganda purposes we may make a choice to not include that in the article as it does not add any encyclopaedic value in any case. Wikipedia is not the news. Refer to WP:NOTNEWS. TarnishedPath^talk 05:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

there are a number of reliable sources that state there was over 60 masked nazis. I believe they will use anything for propaganda of course but this is not a useless fact, its very important as it adds to the sub category of their activities JoyfulComrade (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

There are reliable sources for all sorts of things. That doesn't mean that we have to jam everything into an article. In this case the fact that there was 60 of them is immaterial. The important parts are covered, per WP:DUE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTNEWS. TarnishedPath^talk 08:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

who decides then? In the section regarding the groups actions on 13th of october the wiki goes into detail about what specific time the train departed the station, how would that be deemed more important than the number of people who attended? I'm just very confused is all. Thank you. JoyfulComrade (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that particular sentence. It was extraneous information and its inclusion made that sentence too long. You could have edited that out yourself and I don't think anyone would have cared.

Who decides? Generally decisions are made on the basis of discussion and consensus. If things can't be sorted out that way, after some discussion, people can invite broader community involvement by starting an WP:RFC. But including the amount of people that the police stopped is not important information that is necessary for the article. It's coat tailing. TarnishedPath^talk 05:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

ok i understand, thanks. JoyfulComrade (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)