Talk:Wolves of Vinland

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... The reason given for speedy deletion is incorrect; Wolves of Vinland is not a musical group. --FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because, as the article and its source indicate, it's acquired a surprisingly large number of supporters from across the country, and has been trying to exert its influence within conservative politics to some success. It's also been covered in multiple reliable sources of various genres, not all of which highlight the racial aspect of the group (for example, this one from an outdoor magazine). --FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Another thing to point out is that "Ulfheim" is a de facto town (it's not officially incorporated, but Wikipedia has many articles on unincorporated communities including some of which are much smaller than the 300 or so this group apparently has). The population threshold for determining the notability of towns is fairly low (I'm not sure there's an ironclad threshold but 300 is certainly well above it). FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Calling a piece of land that people party on "an unincorporated town" is bizarre. Proof would have to be provided that people actually live there. If there are 300 Wolves, which seems unlikely, and they have several chapters, 300 of them obviously don't live on the land. What would the motivation be for calling a piece of land an unincorporated town, when the group itself has never tried to make that assertion?Daturaravenswing82 (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Wolves of Vinland

This group is listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center on it's Hate Map in the state of Wyoming. https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map

The SPLC hate map is a fundraising tool for a strongly biased, political activist group. No facts have to be presented, and indeed no article was ever written to justify this inclusion. They just include groups they don't like to inflate the number of hate groups to scare people into donating money. They include many Christian groups and even men's rights bloggers as "hate mongers." There is no proof that the Wolves of Vinland as an organization are actively involved in targeting any other groups with violence, or publishing disparaging things about minorities as a group, and they have never marched publicly as an organization in a parade or made any kind of political push. In fact, members like Paul Waggener fequently discourage supporters from voting or involving themselves in politics in any way.

75% of the edits on this page are POV, so singling out any particular person as POV is laughable. Daturaravenswing82 (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Your theories about SPLC are unsupported. Being visibly involved with politics has little to do with being a white nationalist group, but the connections to Youth for Western Civilization and National Policy Institute undermine this claim. Not to mention the whole thing about a member trying to burn down a black church, and the group rallying to supporting him. It is entirely possible to be a Christian group and/or a men's rights blogger while also being racist. Like it or not, SPLC is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Theories unsupported? By whom? Other supporters of the SPLC? SPLC representatives? Other far left groups who call everyone racists?

Overlapping membership with other organizations does not characterize the purpose of a group or all of its members, unless you are a yellow journalist, generating fake news, or interested in association smears for some personal reason. NPI calls itself a White Nationalist organization, so it is fair and accurate to call it one. Most actual neo-Nazi groups identify as such.

Cite a public statement by a Wolves of Vinland representative speaking on behalf of the group and its members identifying it as a white nationalist group -- meaning a group that is working to create a whites only nation, because that is what that means -- or expressing hateful views, or advocating violence against other groups. Or what you are doing, Grayfell, is repeating a sleazy, libelous conspiracy theory and using Wikipedia to advance your own political agenda.

The articles you have worked on include articles about Burning Man, which swings far left, and "The First Civil Right: book about the role of liberal politics in the inequality of the U.S. prison system," and there are numerous references to you obsessively editing articles having to do with the Alternative Right, Nazis, and White Nationalism leaving little doubt that you are an activist advancing your own political agenda, and can't be trusted to produce neutral content about a group that you believe opposes your own views.

Even the article from The Daily Beast, one of the only sources that isn't a far left activist organization with a stated political agenda (Citing IdaVox is about as NPOV as citing Stormfront for "facts") actually only has one quote from the group itself, and that is a Bane quote from a Batman movie. The reporter wrote two sensational articles full of speculation about a group that trolled her, supported by no actual content from or by the group itself.

Daturaravenswing82 (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia favors independent sources for content like this. Digging around for statements from the group to try and figure out their ideology would be original research, and also impractical. We have sources saying they are, and that's enough. If you can find a source from the group specifically saying they are not, it could also be added to the article as a rebuttal, but it doesn't cancel the existing sources. Nowhere does the article say they are Neo-Nazi, and many white supremacist/nationalist/pride/identitarian/separatist/kinism groups use euphemisms and word-games to downplay the contentiousness of their ideologies. Wikipedia should use plain language instead of euphemisms. Anti-racists sources may or may not be reliable, but that has to be judged on their own merits. Comparing IdaVox (One People's Project) to Stormfront is classic false equivalence. Having a stated political agenda doesn't automatically disqualify a source from being reliable. Grayfell (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

SPA accounts

There have been a couple of accounts with few to no other contributions who have been removing information from this page, such as User: Cawav, User: EpicFantasy and User: Daturaravenswing82. I'm not sure if there is any connection or puppetry between these accounts, but it'd probably be a good idea keeping an eye on this page. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wolves of Vinland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151119014926/http://www.wolvesofvinland.net/ to http://www.wolvesofvinland.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

POV, and resistance

An independent eye would easily notice this article's quasi-romantic view; a common Wikipedia reader would feel something wrong here. It borders on a recruiting site or advocacy WP:ADVOCACY. The article is weak in notability WP:N, but long in making a point WP:POINT. A look at its talk page reveals that a group has worked hard to protect it and maintain its subjectivity despite repeated warnings.

If the article is here to stay, we (that includes those who wrote it and are still protecting it) should work together to wikify it, professionalize it, and make it as dispassionately as possible. This is not hard to do. Just follow the guidelines WP:PG, read lots of other good articles WP:GA, and ask for review/help WP:PR. This last point is key. If you want it to pass muster, you should have it reviewed by other unrelated Wikipedians, and the best way is to ask for help directly WP:EA. Failing to do so, would keep this article feeble and always on the brink of deletion/reduction. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 01:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Operation Werewolf

There is another group called “Operation Werewolf” that appears to be closely linked to the Wolves of Vinland. It has a website and a blog where they claim to be waging “war” against mainstream society. Rather alarmingly, it has the same name as a historical Nazi campaign. If anyone can find any non-primary sources about Operation Werewolf, it should probably be added to this article. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:7F3C (talk) 09:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)