Jump to content

Talk:National Socialist Network

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Evoren (talk | contribs) at 16:30, 17 December 2024 (→Riverina Chapter in the Infobox: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

2023 May 13th additions

Hello I would like to make a proposal to expand the May 13th paragraph, including the facts that 1. Escort was provided to the Neo-Nazis. 2. The Neo-Nazis were forced off the Steps of Parliament near the start of the protest/before the protest began, and 3. Objects other than Glass Jars were thrown at the Neo-Nazis. Sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLHjfWvmbdQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwIHlrPPn6chttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHmsjP63KsM 120.159.80.88 (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of the YouTube clips you have provided, the first states that objects were thrown at the neo-Nazis, the second states that glass bottles and tin cans were thrown at the neo-Nazis and the third states (twice) that objects were thrown at the neo-Nazis. At no point in any of the clips is it stated that _ANY_ objects were thrown at the neo-Nazis _WHILE_ they were being escorted by police. As this material pertains to living people, Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people applies. Per WP:BLPDELETE "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed". Do not restore the material again unless you have obtained consensus. TarnishedPathtalk 01:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corowa and Terrorist Threats

These villains have been spreading false information over authorities removing children of far-right criminals in the United Kingdom, and Sewell has threatened terrorist attacks if Australian children are removed as well. Source here. Corowa also had a neo-Nazi rally on 12 October, although the group has not yet been confirmed as the NSN. Source Here. 2001:8003:ADA6:CB00:EDFD:F98E:31C0:3CD9 (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi) article with that content. I'm busy working on that article and I'll work out at a later time how much of the content to include here. TarnishedPathtalk 13:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Material on Cafe Gummo Incident

TarnishedPath, your approach to this article is frustrating and inconsistent. I made the initial edits to improve the article based on clear issues with relevance and verifiability. You reverted everything without justification, forcing me to edit again, this time proving with hard evidence that the claim about someone “hiding in the theatre” was completely fabricated and not in source 24. After that, you backpedaled, removing the fabricated claim but restored all other problematic content, as if I now need to go through this process point by point just to clean up basic inaccuracies.

The claim about knives: This is a witness statement in Nine News, unverified by police or any corroborating evidence. Per WP:UNDUE, Wikipedia does not amplify unverified claims, even if they’re mentioned in otherwise reliable sources. It does not belong in the article.

The fundraiser amount: This detail has no relevance to NSN or the incident’s context. Including it violates WP:RELEVANCE, as the focus should remain on NSN’s actions, not unrelated aspects of the event.

Instead of admitting the initial reversion was premature and without proper consideration, you’ve resorted to nitpicking, restoring irrelevant or unverifiable details piecemeal. This behavior is unproductive, and your interpretation of WP:ONUS is flawed. The burden of proof is on you to justify why this material meets Wikipedia’s standards for inclusion, not on me to clean up poor edits one at a time.

Frankly, I’m here on the talk page now so you can explain your reasoning and admit you restored content that doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s standards, instead of dragging this into a tedious back-and-forth. I’m not playing this game of fixing fabricated or irrelevant content one edit at a time just for you to nitpick what’s left. Let’s hear your justification for keeping these details, or we can move forward properly by addressing the actual problems with the content. Evoren (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obtain consensus for your changes. TarnishedPathtalk 11:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve outlined clear, policy-based reasons for my proposed edits, and I’m still waiting for you to address them. If you have an actual argument for restoring unverifiable and irrelevant content, feel free to make it. Otherwise, consensus doesn’t mean delaying edits indefinitely while you refuse to engage. I’ll happily wait a bit for meaningful input, but I’m not going to sit around playing procedural games.
Let’s not forget that you initially restored a fabricated claim about someone “hiding in a theatre,” which wasn’t even in the source. After I proved it was entirely made up, you removed that detail but still insisted on restoring other problematic content without justification.
If you’re unable to provide a substantive counterargument based on Wikipedia guidelines, I’ll proceed with the edits in good faith, as the issues with verifiability and relevance remain unresolved. Evoren (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your "policy" arguments are defective. Did you even read the respective policies? TarnishedPathtalk 07:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability (WP:V): The claim about knives relies solely on an unverified witness statement, which fails WP:V. Material must come from reliable, corroborated sources.
Relevance (WP:RELEVANCE): Details like the fundraiser amount are irrelevant to NSN’s actions and bloat the article. WP:RELEVANCE states content must directly relate to the topic.
Let’s not forget the fabricated “hiding in a theatre” claim you initially restored, which wasn’t even in the source. After removing that, you still kept other unsupported material without explanation.
If you think my arguments are “defective,” provide specific policy-based reasoning. Otherwise, I’ll proceed with edits in good faith to align the article with Wikipedia guidelines. Evoren (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The knife statement can be contextualised by just saying “a witness saw the assailants carrying knives” or similar.
  • I think the fundraiser amount is an interesting detail that helps readers understand the event. If it raised 5 dollars in total, then that would give a different context, as would it raising 10 million dollars. Also “bloat the article”? It’s 1 sentence, I think it’ll cope. GraziePrego (talk) 12:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The knife statement, even if reworded, still comes from an unverified witness and is totally uncorroborated. If you really wanted it, it is better "A witness told Nine News that some of the masked individuals were carrying knives, though this claim was not corroborated by law enforcement or other sources."
    As for the fundraiser amount, it does not directly relate to NSN’s actions and fails WP:RELEVANCE. The focus of the article should remain on NSN and their involvement, not tangential details about the fundraiser’s success. Including it risks distracting readers and giving undue weight to an unrelated aspect of the event. The article can “cope” without trivia that detracts from the topic. Evoren (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. We don't need corroborating evidence about a detail of an event that not a lot of journalists wrote about because they couldn't give two shits about NSN. The fact that a reliable source conveys it means we are able to use it with attribution as is the case.
    2. WP:RELEVANCE is an essay, not WP:PAG, but even taking that into account the relevance of it being a fundraiser would be high according to essay as The highest relevance is objective information directly about the topic of the article". The topic of the material is NSN attending an event, therefore the type of event is directly relevant. NSN didn't just decide to show up, faces covered, for shits and giggles.
    You're not making a very compelling case for your suggested changes. TarnishedPathtalk 13:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TarnishedPath, I’ve made a clear, policy-based case for the suggested changes:
    Knife Statement: The claim comes from a single witness, uncorroborated by law enforcement or other sources. Including it without qualification violates WP:UNDUE by giving disproportionate weight to an unverified claim. The phrasing I proposed—"A witness told Nine News that some of the masked individuals were carrying knives, though this claim was not corroborated by law enforcement or other sources" - ensures compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:V.
    Fundraiser Amount: While the type of event (an antifascist fundraiser) is relevant, the amount raised has no bearing on NSN’s actions or motivations. Including it fails WP:RELEVANCE by focusing on a tangential detail that does not advance understanding of NSN’s involvement.
    If you feel this case isn’t compelling, please address the points raised with specific policy-based arguments. Dismissing them without engagement doesn’t contribute to building consensus. Evoren (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Using words like “though” is very rarely a good example of NPOV in my experience, a sentence construction like that immediately frames the earlier part as untrustworthy. I also still think the amount fundraised is relevant for the reasons I gave earlier. GraziePrego (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GraziePrego, neutrality is about presenting information in a balanced way, which includes acknowledging when claims are uncorroborated. The word "though" in "though this claim was not corroborated" simply informs readers of the lack of verification, ensuring compliance with WP:NPOV. Omitting such context would mislead readers into taking the claim as fact, which would violate neutrality. If you have a more neutral phrasing suggestion that achieves the same goal, feel free to propose it.
    As for the fundraiser amount, its inclusion still fails WP:RELEVANCE. The specific amount raised does not contribute to understanding NSN’s actions or motivations for attending. The focus should remain on their attempt to disrupt the event, not unrelated details about the fundraiser’s success. Your argument about "context" doesn’t hold here because the amount raised is tangential and doesn’t enhance the article’s coverage of NSN. Evoren (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The news.com.au source says “The scary scenes caught on video, in which no one was injured, were reportedly sparked after around a dozen neo-Nazis wearing black balaclavas, some armed with knives, attempted to gatecrash an “anti-fascist fundraiser” held at Cafe Gummo in Thornbury.”, so we have a reliable source directly confirming the existence of knives. GraziePrego (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying the knives point, no issues there.
    However, the fundraiser amount still fails WP:RELEVANCE. Evoren (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riverina Chapter in the Infobox

The existence of the NSN Riverina chapter is well-documented and should be restored to the infobox. Multiple sources confirm its presence and activities: 1. Telegram Channel: The NSN Riverina chapter operates an official Telegram channel that explicitly identifies itself as part of NSN. The channel frequently posts updates on activities in the region, self-identifying as the Riverina chapter. Under WP:ABOUTSELF, self-published material is valid for establishing an organisation’s own claims about its activities. The channel can be located at t.me/riverina1.

2. Media Report: The article from Region Riverina (published on 7 December 2023) documents NSN-affiliated activity in the region, including a neo-Nazi letterbox drop in Wagga Wagga. While the article names the European Australian Movement (EAM), it clearly connects EAM to NSN, highlighting NSN as an affiliate and linking the group to activities in the Riverina. The article can be found by searching: “Neo-Nazi letterbox drop in Wagga calls for white Australian recruits Region Riverina.”

3. Tim Lutze, a senior NSN official, directly referenced the Riverina chapter in a tweet from his personal Twitter account on 6 December 2023. In the tweet, he stated: “NSN Riverina chapter disrupted a paedo grooming event held at a local cinema in Albury.” In the same tweet, he tagged the group’s @NSNcontactbot account for further contact.

While the Telegram channel and Tim Lutz’s statement are primary sources, they are valid under WP:ABOUTSELF because they reflect NSN’s self-published claims about its own organisation. Combined with the media report, these sources collectively verify the chapter’s existence and justify its inclusion in the infobox.

The removal of this material appears inconsistent, given the strong evidence supporting the chapter’s activity and affiliation with NSN. Ignoring this evidence sets an unreasonably high standard of proof. I propose restoring the Riverina chapter to the infobox to accurately reflect its documented existence and activities. Evoren (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reliable source (not telegram communications or tweets) that states that there is a Riverina chapter of the NSN. The media report you mention clearly states EAM, which currently doesn't have an article but I reckon there is sufficient sourcing for to create one. TarnishedPathtalk 11:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article that somewhat states there is a riverina chapter about the protest the chapter held in Albury, https://www.noticer.news/albury-protest-lgbt-film-night/ 202.169.114.130 (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“The noticer” definitely isn’t anything approaching a reliable source. GraziePrego (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Their about us page says it all, "We support free speech and aim to publish unedited and uncensored views, and provide a space for anonymous contributors". They exercise zero editorial control of submissions they accept to be published. Also looks like a WP:SPS. TarnishedPathtalk 01:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"they authorise zero editorial control of submissions" doesn't exactly suggest journalistic integrity and thoroughness to me. also, if someone has an interest in the integrity of this wikipedia article, they're probably well aware of the connotations of being a "noticer" in internet parlance. if you genuinely think this is a reliable, well-intentioned news source, please branch out. Micahtchi (talk) 07:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Micahtchi, the only meaning I'm aware of is "someone that notices". What does it mean in internet parlance? TarnishedPathtalk 07:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://letmegooglethat.com/ Micahtchi (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol, did that and came up with more of the same. TarnishedPathtalk 07:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath hey, sorry i got short. i was cooking and should've left the question to reply to properly. Micahtchi (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
all good TarnishedPathtalk 12:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, found the meme. I've probably seen it in the past and ignored it because the format is right-wing dribble. TarnishedPathtalk 07:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Their official Telegram channel explicitly calls itself the “Riverina chapter,” regularly posting updates about their activities in the region. Under WP:ABOUTSELF, that’s perfectly valid for verifying claims about their own organisation. Are you seriously suggesting a group can’t verify its own existence?
Then there’s Tim Lutz, a senior NSN official, tweeting about the Riverina chapter disrupting an event in Albury. If one of their leaders publicly acknowledges the chapter, are we just supposed to ignore it? The fact that you’re dismissing these sources as if they’re irrelevant is ridiculous.
Your claim that “reliable sources” are needed completely ignores WP:ABOUTSELF, which explicitly allows self-published sources for non-controversial claims about an organisation’s internal structure or activities. This isn’t some wild accusation—it’s the group literally announcing their own chapter. Dismissing that reeks of bad faith editing.
If you have a genuine issue with the sources, explain how they fail Wikipedia’s actual policies rather than moving the goalposts. Otherwise, stop wasting everyone’s time pretending the Riverina chapter doesn’t exist. Evoren (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a member of the National Socialist Network? TarnishedPathtalk 06:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TarnishedPath, your question is absurd and a clear attempt to deflect from the actual issue. No, I’m not a member of the NSN. Are you? Because the only reason someone would pose such a ridiculous, irrelevant question is if they were rattled by having their unchecked edits finally challenged.
Let’s get back to the point: the existence of the Riverina chapter is supported by multiple sources, including the NSN’s own Telegram channel and a senior NSN official’s tweet. Under WP:ABOUTSELF, these are valid for verifying claims about the group’s own structure and activities. If you have a legitimate counterargument based on WP:V or WP:RELEVANCE, feel free to make it. But don’t waste time with baseless accusations just because someone has come along to correct your questionable edits after far too long.
Focus on policy and evidence—or step aside. Evoren (talk) 11:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given you linked the NSN’s telegram channel and mentioned the contents of said channel, I think TarnishedPath’s question seems quite reasonable. The average person doesn’t usually access sewers of that kind. GraziePrego (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NSN Riverina Telegram channel is publicly accessible and appears in search results when you Google "NSN Riverina chapter." Accessing such publicly available sources is standard practice for verifying information on Wikipedia and does not imply any affiliation. Let's focus on the content and adherence to Wikipedia's verifiability and relevance policies. Evoren (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I can't see that Tim Lutz being a NSN official is publicly available information. When I do a search for them I only find this and this. I can't read what the Herald Sun writes, which doesn't matter anyway because it's an unreliable source. I can read what WyndhamTV writes and it says that his is a prominent member of NSN, who is connected to the nazi gym in Sunshine. WyndhamTV does not say he's an official, so I don't see why someone would say that unless they had knowledge of the inner workings of NSN that wasn't public. Also as you note Grazie, your average Joe isn't subscribed to that filth in Telegram. TarnishedPathtalk 12:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WyndhamTV identifies Tim Lutz as a “prominent member” of NSN, which is sufficient to include his statements under WP:ABOUTSELF. Whether he is an "official" or not is splitting hairs; his public affiliation with NSN and the use of their Telegram bot in his tweets clearly demonstrate his connection to the organisation.
Referring to public, verifiable sources as "filth" or questioning why they’re accessed does nothing to address the policies governing verifiability and relevance. The sources presented meet Wikipedia’s standards for inclusion; personal opinions about the platform or content are immaterial. Evoren (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not sufficient for inclusion under WP:ABOUTSELF. Per the policy "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities ...". This is not an article about Tim Lutz and we have no reliable sources stating is an NSN official.
Back to my last statement though, can you advise how you're aware that Tim Lutz is a NSN official given I can't find public information in reliable sources about that? TarnishedPathtalk 13:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TarnishedPath, your interpretation of WP:ABOUTSELF is selective and ignores its full scope. The policy explicitly allows self-published sources to verify claims about their own activities, even in articles not specifically about the source itself. Tim Lutz’s public statements on NSN activities (e.g., the Riverina chapter) meet this standard because they relate directly to the organisation’s structure and actions.
The question is not whether Tim Lutz has a specific title but whether his statements are verifiable and relevant. Based on policy, they are.
Given this, I suggest we now include the Riverina chapter in the article, supported by the following sources:
  1. The NSN Riverina Telegram channel (valid under WP:ABOUTSELF).
  2. Tim Lutz’s public tweet explicitly naming the Riverina chapter and its activities.
  3. Media coverage linking NSN-affiliated actions to the Riverina region (e.g., WyndhamTV, Region Riverina).
If there are no valid policy-based objections, I propose adding this content in good faith to reflect the documented evidence. Evoren (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re ignoring TarnishedPath’s policy-based objections and then claiming there aren’t any objections. As TP says, we have no reliable sources saying this Tim Lutz is an “official” in the NSN, and his statements are not even relevant to the matter under WP:ABOUTSELF as the article isn’t about him. GraziePrego (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TarnishedPath’s objections misinterpret WP:ABOUTSELF and fail to consider the broader context of the policy. WP:ABOUTSELF explicitly allows self-published sources (like Tim Lutz’s tweet) for claims about an organisation's own activities, not just in articles specifically about the source. This is not about Tim Lutz personally; his statement about the Riverina chapter directly relates to NSN's activities, making it relevant to this article under WP:ABOUTSELF.
As for the claim that Tim Lutz is not an “official,” this is a semantic argument. His public affiliation with NSN is sufficient, as shown by WyndhamTV identifying him as a "prominent member" and his tweet tagging NSN’s Telegram bot. The policy does not require precise titles to validate public statements tied to an organisation’s actions. Evoren (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WyndhamTV doesn’t look like a particularly high quality reliable source to me (with apologies to the good people of Wyndham), and couldn’t any random Twitter user tag the NSN bot in their replies? GraziePrego (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GraziePrego, this level of nitpicking over sources is absurd for a simple infobox entry. The Riverina chapter is supported by multiple sources.
Tim Lutz’s Tweet: Publicly posted and directly referencing the Riverina chapter’s activities. The claim doesn’t require him to be an “official,” as his public affiliation with NSN is well-documented, and his statements about NSN activities are valid under WP:ABOUTSELF.
Telegram Channel: NSN’s Riverina chapter explicitly self-identifies as part of the organisation. This is a self-published source used to verify the group’s own structure, perfectly valid under WP:ABOUTSELF.
WyndhamTV: While not the highest-tier source, it corroborates Lutz’s NSN affiliation by identifying him as a "prominent member." TarnishedPath themselves introduced WyndhamTV as a substitute for Herald Sun earlier in this discussion. To suddenly dismiss it as unreliable is inconsistent and undermines their own argument.
Suggesting anyone could tag the NSN bot or dismissing public Telegram channels as invalid sources is pure deflection. The evidence as a whole establishes the Riverina chapter's existence and its connection to NSN.
This ongoing nitpicking and shifting of goalposts is not constructive. If you have valid policy-based objections to the inclusion of Riverina, please provide them. Otherwise, I propose we move forward with the edit in good faith to reflect the available evidence. Evoren (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ICANTHEARYOU at this point, it’s been explained multiple times why ABOUTSELF doesn’t apply, and we don’t have good reliable sourcing to say the Riverina chapter is a thing. GraziePrego (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve carefully addressed your concerns multiple times and explained how the sources meet WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:V:
ABOUTSELF: Tim Lutz’s tweet and the NSN Riverina Telegram channel are valid self-published sources for non-controversial claims about NSN’s activities. This policy doesn’t require the article to be about the individual source, only that the claims pertain to the organisation’s structure or actions.
Reliable Sources: Telegram and tweets are primary sources that establish the Riverina chapter’s self-identified existence. WyndhamTV corroborates Lutz’s NSN affiliation and was initially introduced by TarnishedPath as a valid alternative to Herald Sun.
Dismissing these sources outright without engaging with the policy explanations I’ve provided feels like goalpost-shifting. If you disagree with the interpretation of ABOUTSELF or the reliability of these sources, please provide a policy-based counterargument instead of repeating objections that have already been addressed.
I’m still open to discussion, but at this point, I believe the evidence supports adding Riverina to the infobox, and I will proceed with the edit in good faith unless new, policy-based objections are raised. Evoren (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Tim Lutz's tweet doesn't satisfy ABOUTSELF because we have no indication that he's in a position to speak on behalf of NSN. All we know from WP:RS is that he is a member, despite your claims that he is an official and I'm still waiting for an answer how your privy to that non-public information. If you edit to introduce the material, against WP:ONUS, you will be reverted. TarnishedPathtalk 07:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TarnishedPath, your repeated dismissal of Tim Lutz’s public statement as insufficient under WP:ABOUTSELF ignores the policy itself. ABOUTSELF allows self-published sources to verify an organisation’s own activities, which this clearly pertains to. Tim Lutz publicly identifies the Riverina chapter’s existence in connection with NSN activities. Whether he holds a formal “official” title is irrelevant—his statements are on behalf of NSN’s actions, which aligns with ABOUTSELF.
Further, your insistence on needing proof of Lutz’s “position to speak” veers into absurd gatekeeping. We’re not dealing with non-public information; we’re citing publicly available statements corroborated by NSN Riverna's Telegram channel, Tim Lutz’s verified social media presence, and news reporting on his role within NSN. You’ve dismissed all of this without offering a policy-based rebuttal.
At this point, it’s clear we’re stuck in circles, and I believe further input is needed to resolve this. If you continue to block edits with WP:ONUS while refusing to engage meaningfully, I will escalate this to a Request for Comment or other appropriate dispute resolution channels. Your stonewalling is not constructive, and Wikipedia’s policies require collaboration, not obstruction. Evoren (talk) 08:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take your WP:WIKILAWYERING elsewhere. Add the material without consensus and you will be reverted. TarnishedPathtalk 08:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC has been opened regarding the above disputed material. All input is welcome. Evoren (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Including the Riverina Chapter in the NSN Infobox

Should the Riverina chapter of the NSN be included in the infobox?

Evoren (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Riverina chapter is already mentioned in the article as being involved in flyer distribution in Wagga Wagga. The proposed addition would include the Riverina chapter in the infobox to reflect its documented existence and activities.
The Riverina chapter’s existence and connection to NSN is well-documented through multiple sources:
  1. Article Content: The Riverina chapter is already cited in the article.
  2. NSN’s Riverina Telegram Channel: The chapter explicitly self-identifies as part of NSN and posts regular updates. This aligns with WP:ABOUTSELF, which allows self-published sources to verify an organisation’s own claims about its structure or activities.
  3. Tim Lutze's Public Statement: A prominent NSN member publicly referenced the Riverina chapter and its activities in a tweet, tagging the group’s official bot.
  4. Contact Bot acknowledgement : The NSN's official point on contact publicly referenced the Riverina chapter and its activities in a tweet.
  5. Media Coverage: Reporting (e.g., Region Riverina, WyndhamTV, Noticer News) links NSN-affiliated actions to the Riverina region.
TarnishedPath argues that the sources provided, such as Telegram posts and Tim Lutze's statements, do not meet the standards of WP:ABOUTSELF, as they do not establish Lutz as an “official” representative and additionally can't be used as this article is not about Tim Lut'z. They also question the reliability of media outlets like WyndhamTV. Evoren (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Socialist_Network&oldid=1263604155"