Talk:Atomwaffen Division

Untitled

i am incapable of editing wikipedia right now but i think source/footnote (idek) number 3 should be removed because it seems excessively sympathetic to nazism ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.195.134.47 (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Number of killings

I Ferdi1981 changed the number of killings back form eight to five, but RKT7789 undid it, argueing that "article describes eight deaths connected to AWD in the body of the article". I can not confirm that. They are two killings mentioned by Devon Arthurs, two by Nicholas Giampa and one by Samuel Woodward. So this is five and all of the linked US-articles are saying also, that they are five killings related to the group. Which further killings are linked to the group? —Preceding undated comment added 17:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ferdi1981: Smith's "comrade" Lang murdered Serafin Lorenzo and Deana Lorenzo in Florida and Thomasberg was connected to the racially motivated murder of Bao Hung Van, even by his own admission. And even if he didn't fire the deadly bullet personally, his associate he had armed and trained did. And this is confirmed by Peter R. Neumann of The International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence. In the most recent edit by User:X1\, the linked ZDNet article also quotes the number of murders as 8. The older articles quote the old figure, newer articles the new figure, naturally. I want to state that I assume you're arguing in good faith, and I'm implying nothing else, but we've had neo-nazis attempt to tone down the article before and remove incriminating information, so I'm just extra quick with the undo. Don't take it personally. RKT7789 (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@RKT7789: 1: You write: "Smith's "comrade" Lang murdered Serafin Lorenzo and Deana Lorenzo in Florida" This was a robbery. I find it difficult and wrong to associate a murder to a group when the motiv of the murderer is different to the groups intentions. If you argue like this you could also write that "catholics" or whatever are linked to whatever number of murders, only because a catholic person killed someone. This does not demonstrate the danger of a group. 2. You write: "Thomasberg was connected to the racially motivated murder of Bao Hung Van, even by his own admission." The wikipedia article just says that he trained him in self-defense, which is obviously something completly different than training to kill someone. So I ask you to consider whether it is really appropriate to connect these murder with the "group" AWD.Ferdi1981 (talk)

@Ferdi1981: It is perfectly appropriate: foremost danger of the group is they arm, train and tell its okay to kill to bunch of mentally unstable people, with predictably unpredictable results. They probably wont commit the next 9/11, but they can cause a lot of deaths for aforementioned reasons. If you look at the deaths, most of them havent been ideological. Besides, Lang's robberies were to fund trips to fight with foreign nazis, so they were among the most ideological. If you train someone to shoot, it doesnt matter to the victim if that was for offensive or defensive purposes. Whole discussion about ideology is a moot point in any case.RKT7789 (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate you talking in the talk page though instead of edit war, but with the backing up of several sources I don't know if there's much to discuss. If you feel strongly about this I welcome you to ask a higher up for arbitration.RKT7789 (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Christian Identity

@Mt.FijiBoiz and Railfan23: I'm not removing it for now, but saying a few adhere to the faith or even including it at all might be overtly generous since all we have to support that claim is one article mentioning one person with a picture of an Atomwaffen flag adheres to Christian Identity, and even that article doesn’t explicitly say he’s Atomwaffen, even if it's reasonable to assume that. No mention in SPLC or ADL profiles or elsewhere of it at all. RKT7789 (talk) 04:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@RKT7789: I'm not sure why you're pinging me on this. I merely reverted a vandal who removed a number of the Ideologies from the infobox, while leaving them in the article and categories list. I didn't add Christian Identity to the article and express no opinion about whether that particular ideology is well-sourced enough to include in the article on its own. I think you may be confusing me with another editor. A search through the version history should reveal who added that in the first place. Railfan23 (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I just wanted to add everyone who edited regarding the issue. RKT7789 (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Further, the article identifies him as a member of a different organization. Double membership could be possible, but really the only thing even suggesting any connection is Julian Calfy posting a picture of Atomwaffen flag defaced with a christian symbol. So it's a pretty tortured argument. RKT7789 (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Ideology

Hello @Beyond My Ken: I see you've reverted my edits to the infobox section on the group's ideologies. Do you have any objections? Candido (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, "racisn" and "terrorism" have been in the infobox for a while, so you should make an argument here for why they should be dropped. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Infoboxes should summarize the most important parts of the article in a concise manner. Since the ideology section is getting pretty cluttered, I think we should remove redundant information, for the sake of precision. Candido (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I don;t agree that "racism" and "terrorism" are "redundant". They appear to me to be central to AD's existence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Neo-nazism, fascism and white supremacy and white nationalism are probably enough to make it clear they don’t like gays, Jews or people of color. Terrorism could stay as the lack of belief in a political solution is very central to them.RKT7789 (talk) 07:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Social Media as Source

@Beyond My Ken: Sorry for newbie question: What's the policy regarding using social media as a source? As a rule of thumb, I'd imagine actual articles and books are preferred, but I saw some more established user had used Jake Hanrahan's Twitter page as a source on this page. I added Nate Thayer's post from his official Facebook page that corroborated an instance of kidnapping and torture by AWD. It's not really a critical addition since the case is referred to by PBS and Hope not Hate as well, but I thought more sources the better. RKT7789 (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that social media sources are usuable only if they are in some way verified as being the actual accounts of the person named, and then only for the views of that person, i.e. they cannot be used as a neutral unnamed reliable source. I hope that someone will correct me if I'm wrong. I think WP:SPS applies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Beliefs

@Takinginterest01: https://miro.medium.com/max/1350/0*-7jEe5QczNCLJs2L.jpg

“Devon specifically believes that the neocons were using anti-Islam as a proxy for white genocide”

This is the image you’re referring to, right? And you would agree it says “Devon believes”, not that “I (Woodward) believe”. Right? RKT7789 (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess we could change Woodward to Devon in the article but I’m not sure Woodward would be an acceptable source to talk about views of others. Probably. RKT7789 (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Mason's claim they are disbanding

The source[1] says "Mason's announcement, which just hit the Internet via an audio recording, comes as federal law enforcement, Congress and the U.S. State Department ramp up the pressure on neo-Nazi groups that take up arms, such as Atomwaffen. Because of the timing, though, some critics believe that the move is designed to give members breathing room rather than actually end their militant activities." It is quoted by the ADL.[2] Doug Weller talk 16:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Expanded the section to reflect the fact every source and ADL & SPLC call his claim into question, SITE Intelligence even providing direct evidence to the contrary.RKT7789 (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

i think they rebranded as the "National Socialist Order" according to this article: https://www.ibtimes.com/us-neo-nazi-terror-group-atomwaffen-division-resurfaces-under-name-national-socialist-3049451. im not sure if that website is a reliable source or not tho. --Anon805 (talk) 04:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@Anon805:I've been aware of this for a while but been unsure how to handle it. If I created a new page for it, it would give legitimacy to the claim they're a totally new group, even when all WSE experts agree it's just a yet another blatant rebrand to throw off law enforcement. They've claimed they've disbanded before only for it to turn out they never did. Besides, they haven't done any major actions under the new name. Best way might be to do how we handled Identity Evropa rebrand - just one page that mentions both names, treating them as one entity, because they are. Thoughts? RKT7789 (talk) 08:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

re: Atomwaffen member in Navy

Regarding the description in this article of the expulsion of a member of the US Navy:

A U.S. Navy officer was expelled for allegedly recruiting 12 members for the group.

The original citation for this (the linked source is a secondhand report) is here:

https://gizmodo.com/leak-exposes-u-s-navy-sailor-as-once-prolific-recruite-1841149776

The sailor in question is listed as "aviation machinist mate’s apprentice." This would identify him as a sailor, not an officer, so the above language should be changed.

Accelerationism

@Mononononoke:Every single reference in the article uses "accelerationism". You can't just come up with new words because you love Nick Land and feel offended accelerationism is mostly associated with nazism nowadays. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth WP:NOTGETTINGIT. It doesn't matter what you feel is the objective truth, unless you can cite an article using the term "race war accelerationism". All wikipedia articles that cover the matter refer to nazi accelerationism as just accelerationism. If want to revert all of them, you got your work cut out for you.

Mostly its annoying because your edits break the link.RKT7789 (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Easy answer. The german wikipedia article on Accelerationism clearly states far right/tactical accelerationism as something seperate and unrelated to accelerationism and cites a source. Hoping for a reply since this should clear up all your questions Mononononoke (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mononononoke:German AWD article just links to the Landian accelerationism article. Wanna shed light on what you are referring to?RKT7789 (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The article "A Quick-and-Dirty Introduction to Accelerationism." cited as a source on the german page on Accelerationism explains what accelerationism is in itself, the other sources and the first paragraph of the page show a clear distinction between accelerationism and far right "accelerationism". Mononononoke (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mononononoke: By the way, I initially agreed with you that those two accelerationisms are separate. But you inspired me to do some research and found out Nick Land read and promoted the accelerationist satanist cult Order of Nine Angles that has heavy overlap with AWD. So it turns out they are connected indeed. Thoughts? Nick Land promoting pedophile terrorists on his site.RKT7789 (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

He's specifically referring to occultism and goes on to return to Crowley's 777 stuff, so it's a bit like comparing NS use of vedas to New Age hippie use of vedas. Land's influences range from Karl Marx to the far right and besides that I don't see a significant relation between Land's occult stuff and accelerationism in this context. To cite his Jacobite article again, deterritorialization is the only thing accelerationism has ever really talked about. Mononononoke (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

ONA promotes what you describe as "nazi accelerationism" in its works. Nick said he found it "very stimulating" and "highly recommended". I'm not saying he's necessarily inspired by it to any larger extent, but he acknowledges it and has said it has merit.

I added a small disclaimer to the Accelerationism article about the things we've discussed. Hope you can appreciate it despite disagreements.

PS: Looks like Land even added links to their material in his sites resources section, so he must have absolutely been aware he was promoting nazi terrorists.RKT7789 (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Split History and Ideology into different contents

I think there should be more focus on creating a more cohesive timeline of Atomwaffen's activities, while the material regarding the groups ideology be moved to a separate section. It would make the article flow a tad better, and it would fit in line with most other articles about terrorist groups (i.e. Al-Qaeda; the Islamic State; Order of Nine Angles), which list the history and ideology in two different sections. If you have any objections to my proposal, let me know. SgtShyGuy (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Nope, sounds good to me.RKT7789 (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Atomwaffen Division Brazil

I was tracking right-wing terrorist activity on telegram and came across the an Atomwaffen Division channel for brazil, If you want me to post the link I can. Do you think their could be a cell in brazil? or do you this is a imposter organization/fake.--Garmin21 (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Garmin21:There could very well be one, Atomwaffen has previously had affiliates in Brazil who allegedly firebombed a synagogue. But the cell wasn't really reported by media so it didn't make it in the article. As much as we'd like to, can't include original research.RKT7789 (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks--Garmin21 (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Devon Arthurs

Should he be mentioned somewhere in the article since multiple sources consider him a cofounder? I understand he's since renounced it after killing the two roommates, and has being held incompetent by the courts on account of his schizophrenia/other mental illness diagnoses, but he seems like he was a pretty integral part of the history, especially since his killing those roommates is what got Russell arrested on the explosives charge. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliotWL (talk • contribs) 09:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@EliotWL: He's in the accompanying article List of Atomwaffen Division members in the United States who faced criminal charges so I don't see the need to include him in this one.RKT7789 (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@RKT7789: Oh I know. I'm doing a research project for school so I have about 30 pages open at the moment on the group. It just struck me as odd that a supposed cofounder of the group, who had a pretty major effect on it, had zero mention on the page, even in the infobox or in passing. EliotWL (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Exclusively UK-specific paragrabs under the Baltic States section

The Baltic States section has two large UK-specific paragrabs, w/ no reference to the Baltics whatsoever:

"On September 2, 2019, the British police arrested a 16-year-old.."

"On September 2, 2020, Paul Dunleavy from Warwickshire.."

2001:7D0:88F8:ED80:95CD:6BBD:EF58:1660 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Baltic chapter sprung from the British chapter, and some Britons later chose to align with the Baltic chapter, there was some overlap between the chapters. It's a confusing situation, I understand.RKT7789 (talk) 10:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Azov

@Rainwalker1415: Let's take it here: Atomwaffen and Azov have been affiliated since always, Azov was affiliated with Iron March, Atomwaffen members have appeared in Azov's podcast, Atomwaffen members have fought in Azov, etc etc...denying the connection seems just intellectually dishonest at this point.RKT7789 (talk) 06:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The Azov Regiment is part of the Ukrainian National Guard. Whatever its former members may do, they do not represent Azov as an institution any more than what former US marines do represent the actions of the Marine Corps.

You may not enter "Azov" as "ally" of another group; Azov can only be considered an "ally" of countries that Ukraine is an ally of. Rainwalker1415 (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"And although it is a relatively small battalion, estimated at only 900 volunteers, Azov’s reputation and global reach is far bigger. The group has recruited foreign fighters from at least half a dozen countries and has globally become “a larger-than-life brand among many extremists,” according to Katz. U.S.-based militants from the now-defunct Rise Above Movement, along with members of the terrorist group Atomwaffen Division, have been cultivated by Azov." "With the current state of chaos in Ukraine and porous borders near Poland, members of Atomwaffen Division and other neo-Nazis will be welcomed with open arms and plentiful resources provided by the Azov Regiment. Several European leaders have supported their citizens going to Ukraine to fight, referencing—often ahistorically—past struggles like the Spanish Civil War and the Second World War. The unfortunate irony of this sentiment is that it may end up creating the fascist side that they once faced and are now in fear of."AWD has cultivated a relationship with the notorious Azov Battalion, which has emerged as a critical node in the broader WSE movement.The Azov Battalion has cultivated a relationship with members of the Atomwaffen Division as well as with U.S.-based militants from R.A.M

I don't know if you're in denial of Azov being chummy with all sorts of nazi groups or what's the issue here...Now you have the receipts. I mean hell, Azov event sent James Mason their flag. How blatant does it have to be. If you delete the sources I'll consider it vandalism.RKT7789 (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

This desperate situation means that "everyone who is the enemy of my enemy is my (temporary) ally". Ukraine cannot afford to turn anyway any help. Such alliances are not an unusual situation, and, unfortunately fully justified under the circumstances. During the 2nd WW this happened a lot. I share your fears that this may end up giving more power to the nazis. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I see (Azov Regiment article) that there has been some form of resistance to cooperation with Atomwaffen: "In 2020, Ukraine deported two American Atomwaffen members who wanted to join the regiment. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying this for the last time. The Azov Regiment is part of the Ukrainian National Guard. Whatever its former members may do, they do not represent Azov as an institution any more than what former US marines do represent the actions of the Marine Corps.

Refer to article on Azov Regiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Regiment

Please note you are violating the three-revert rule. If you revert again, I will report you as an edit warrior, so consider yourself warned. Rainwalker1415 (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Rainwalker1415: You've got things backwards. You made a bold edit[3], it was reverted[4]. It is now up to you to support it through discussion and gain consensus (WP:BRD). Instead, you've participated in the edit war, and made threats (such as Continue adding it back and you'll be banned), which may be viewed as uncivil. The change you're trying to undo is actually supported with sources in the body of the article. You need to get consensus for this change. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Butlerblog I'm afraid you are confusing things. A "bold edit" is saying that a regiment of a country's armed forces can have "allies", independently, with any institution whatsoever.

Evidence that members of the Azov Regiment have participated in any activities is irrelevant, as it is not the members who define alliances. By the same token, you wouldn't say that a marine gone rogue represents the US Armed Forces.

Your confusion comes, I believe, from the fact that Azov was initiated as a militia (the Azov Battalion), when it was indeed independent to a certain extent. As of 2014, however, it was incorporated into the National Guard of Ukraine (c.f.: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/last-defenders-mariupol-what-is-ukraines-azov-regiment-2022-05-17/ for instance) as the Azov Regiment.

The National Guard, by the way, is not an independent institution -- it is overseen by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and (https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2014-04-04/ukraine-national-guard-restored/).

I hope you won't choose to pick sides on this "edit war", as it should be quite clear which is the bold claim here. Just as no amount of American marines joining the Atomwaffen will make the US Marine Corps an "ally" of it, the (very few) former members of Azov in connection with Atomwaffen do not define the Regiment as an "ally" of Atomwaffen. Rainwalker1415 (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Rainwalker1415: That's not what "bold" means. There's a specific definition within the scope of what we do here. You made a change from something that was supported in the article body by sources. That makes your change WP:BOLD. Your changes were reverted. That puts you into the cycle of WP:BRD. Simply reverting back actually makes you the edit warring party. You need to make your case and gain consensus, but you need to make it not only with sources that support the position, but since this is something that is sourced in the article, you're going to have to provide a valid reason why that's wrong. You need to leave the article WP:STATUSQUO until you have gained new consensus. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I made my point above. It's very clear. Would you care to answer to that? Rainwalker1415 (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, for the umpteenth time, what is sourced in the article is former members of Azov interacting with other groups. They do not reflect the position of Azov, which is part of the Nat. Guard of Ukraine.

I'm honestly wondering if you read what I wrote at all. Rainwalker1415 (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources I linked say Azov unambiguously, nothing about "former members", did YOU read the sources?RKT7789 (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Riddle me this, @RKT7789, does a member of Azov, whether former or current, represent the National Guard of Ukraine? Rainwalker1415 (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

You're the only one who doesn't get it, Azov being connected to Atomwaffen and Azov cultivating ties to AWD isn't controversial on the Azov page itself.RKT7789 (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Just answer the question, @RKT7789.

Are there any declarations by Azov representatives that they are associated with the Atomwaffen? No.

Because they are part of the National Guard of Ukraine. I keep repeating this and you blatantly ignore it, which to my understanding can only mean you are acting in bad faith.

Let's take a look at your "sources".

1) You quoted this Southern Poverty Law Center page. There is exactly one mention of Azov here, as an institution that the Iron March group claimed to support, and that before the group's website went offline in 2017. Correct?

How does this mean Azov is an ally?

2) You mention a podcast interview with Andrew Oneschuk. How does this imply alliance?

3) You mention an article by Monthly Review about Paul Gray, who was not affiliated to Azov. This article incorrectly claims that members of the Atomwaffen trained with Azov, providing as only reference an article by Christopher Miller that DENIES such training happened. In fact, the article (see here) reports on how two members of the Atomwaffen were, in fact, turned away from Ukraine when attempting to join the Azov Regiment.

That is the exact opposite of what you have been claiming.

All your points are easily refuted, and you still refuse to answer my central question: Does a member of Azov, whether former or current, represent the National Guard of Ukraine in an official voice?

The answer is clearly no, and therefore you may not cite Azov as an ally of any institution, which it is not. Rainwalker1415 (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, 1) answer the question above and 2) see how members of the Atomwaffen were deported from Ukraine on attempting to join Azov: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/christopherm51/ukraine-deports-american-neo-nazi-atomwaffen-division

Azov started as a militia with far-right roots, then it was integrated in the Nat. Guard of Ukraine and purged of its far-right elements. Regardless, as part of the Guard of Ukraine, it is not associated with any group whatsoever. Rainwalker1415 (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources in the infobox say Azov is connected to Atomwaffen, and we go by secondary sources. It's that simple. Saying Azov is not nazi is pure nazi apologism and that might explain why you're so hellbent on denying them working with fellow nazis.RKT7789 (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Rapewaffen

@LilianaUwU:@2600:1014:B00F:DCA0:DD14:350F:5BF:79CE: I moved the bit to Order of Nine Angles article, since Rapewaffen isnt a part of Atomwaffen or even originate from it, its just named in reference to it. I hope you find this agreeable. Order of Nine Angles already has a section about sexual abuse and mentions Rapewaffen members.RKT7789 (talk) 09:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Ties to the ONA: please use sources

I deleted a part of a sentence in the opening that suggests Atomwaffen has ties to the Order of Nine Angles. The two sources given only state that someone uploaded an ONA book to a website, posted a picture with an ONA sticker, and some people on a message board maybe made accusations once. This is not sufficient to establish the assertion, and so the sentence fragment was removed. (I left the two sources and the start of the statement, since it appears the sources do establish that part of the sentence.) AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Excessively long "See Also"

The "See Also" section is way too long, and it includes links that are already linked in the main article. I don't link a link to every article about racism or antisemitism in every country or continent it operates in is necessary, for example. I tried trimming it down to be less bloated and focus on groups/movements most similar to it, but it was unilaterally changed and I was told to "discuss" it here. 2600:8802:2712:9E00:C46E:63FF:FE32:D5D (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It is way too long, definitely needs some pruning.RKT7789 (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

"Pruning", not cutting off the legs and then expecting it to walk. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

How is removing excessive entries that only have a minute relevancy to the main article "cutting off the legs"? It's not the main body text that's being cut, it's the entries on the "See Also" section, which is generally considered to be superfluous part of the article. 2600:8802:2712:9E00:B1F8:7914:4596:969C (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I too support removing most if not all entries of this ridiculously bloated see also section. Tried editing it myself but was also told to "discuss" it here. Thismess (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with new trim. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Atomwaffen fighting in Ukraine with Rusich Group

"AWD Russland is part of a coalition of neo-Nazi groups taking part in Russian invasion of Ukraine consisting of AAST, Rusich Group and Russian Imperial Movement, with some overlap."

None of the sources mentioned show them fighting in Ukraine with the Rusich Group. I really doubt a group who attacks Russian government buildings and is proscribed as a terrorist organization would be tolerated by the authorities, let alone choose to fight in its ranks (like Rusich does). In fact, they are more likely to join dozens of far-right groups fighting on the Ukrainian side against Russia. This part of the article seems to be edited for political purposes (the long running issue of "who has more Nazis on their side"). 82.131.13.126 (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

It's been known for long Atomwaffen is fighting with the Russian Imperial Movement. , and RIM is in a coalition with Rusich and NA article says Rusich overlaps with Atomwaffen. I see where you're coming from, but truly, AWD is neutral on the Ukraine issue, and some of its members are trained by Azov and fight on Ukrainian side, and some are trained by RIM and fight on Russian side. AFAIK, neither Ukraine nor Russia has proscribed Atomwaffen, at least yet. I don't think one side has more nazis than the other. Atomwaffen is not alone on this, some Nordic Resistance Movement's Finnish members have also fought on different sides of the conflict.RKT7789 (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Bombing in Vilnius

The bomb that was placed near the Western Union building in Vilnius, Lithuania did not detonate and has been successfully disarmed. There have been no explosions or casualties, and the only damage to the property was caused by graffiti. I think it should be changed to 'Unsuccessful bombing' since it's misleading to people who are unaware of the situation, as it may seem that a successful terror attack occurred. Ginas9999 (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

“Attempted bombing” 2A00:23C6:D603:8001:F9F1:350A:CA1A:8634 (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

“white jihad”

can we have a source on this bizarre claim? The only connections I could confirm between Atomwaffen and white jihad is David Myatt’s Muslim arc — and Myatt’s only tie himself with the NSRF is through the Order (of nine angles)… and factions of the NSRF have only conceded with the niners being an ally for (political) acceleration. This article could do with some better sources all around, preferably releases from government bodies and not MSM. 81.132.156.152 (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia mainly relies on "MSM" sources. https://gnet-research.org/2023/08/23/white-jihad-the-jihadification-of-white-supremacy/ RKT7789 (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Allyship with The Base

Is there a source on this? I don’t think the groups have really acknowledged each others’ existence, though I may be wrong. 2A00:23C6:D603:8001:9426:6A38:77E8:D7F5 (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Extremely outdated membership numbers

The membership number of U.S. initiates is really outdated, the source is from 2019. This isn’t as much of a problem for, say, Patriot Front’s article, but since 2019 a LOT has changed concerning AWD… 2A00:23C6:D603:8001:6955:AB68:B054:95D3 (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you have sources that provide more recent membership numbers? Brat Forelli🦊 15:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no membership in Atomwaffen. Its original design as stated from themselves in posters is that it is decentralized with no formal membership. Not to mention Atomwaffen Division has since been entirely disbanded/dissolved as stated by the American Futurist (who are the last official remnants of Atomwaffen Division) MMF101 (talk) 06:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

That seems contrary to all the sources, but I did add the date to the membership estimates.RKT7789 (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)