Talk:New Zealand National Front/Archive 1

Untitled

Policy Is is tone of this article too anti? Kyle has a bad historyy, yes, but has since renounced it. Most of what the author calls racial violence he has renounced, and has since admitted as more probably alcohol fuelled violence. Kyle has frequently worked with skinheads, as a social worker trying to integrate them back into the "community" away from racial violence and gangs. He has been open about his past and does not support racial violence now, or so his broadcasts on ZB indicate. I wouldn't exactly call him a far right skinhead, i honestly think he's been "Watered down" a bit from that noiw with his entry into mainstream politics.

Fair enough, I suppose. I've reworded the bit about Chapman somewhat. It still mentions the allegations, but only as "critics claim..." rather than as a factual statement. It also presents Chapman's reply - that the claims were exaggerated, and that he's moved away from that sort of thing anyway. Does that look more unbiased, now? -- Vardion 04:36, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

that was quick!

i'd expect this page to get a few more hits over the next 12 months anyway. do you live in christchurch? he's ruunning for mayor here which is giving him a lot more exposure... he's just about to go for a live debate on ZB about another of his extremist measures, vigilante patrols or something.

No, I'm not in Christchurch, but I'll be following Chapman's progress as best I can. I've added a mention of his candidacy to the short Kyle Chapman page itself. I noticed the business about vigilante patrols, too - the police didn't seem to react very positively. Perhaps the patrols can be mentioned in the article, if they get started up on any significant scale. -- Vardion 05:43, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

cheers

My web-browser setup doesn't let me edit/add to articles easily, so i'll have to leave that one up to you. I've only worked ouot how to post comments only. Hopefully if this article gains more attention you can find more contributers too.

A CORRECTION FROM ANTON FOLJAMBE:

Your article on the New Zealand National Front says that the organization was formed by me in 1996. This is not correct. The NF was first formed by Brian Thompson of Ashburton in 1968. It came and went a couple of times through the 70s and 80s. My then organization, the Conservative Front, took over the name in 1989. I remained leader until resigning from the party in 1997. While I formed a new party, the National Democrats, the NF continued on in a very small way. It took off again when Kyle Chapman assumed the leadership, and is now more successful than ever. I have since rejoined in a backseat capacity.

Anton Foljambe 24.10.04.

A few points: Why is the article placed in the catagory of "Neo-Nazi parties"? Wikipedia says: "The Neo-Nazi movement is identified by devotion to Adolf Hitler, the national insignia of Nazi Germany (e.g. the swastika), and other features specific to Germany from the period 1933 to 1945." Yet neither of these are valid for the New Zealand National Front which is purely New Zealand centric movement.

The NZNF might have descibed itself as "the front line of European colonists" at one stage, I don't know, but on its web-site it now describes itself as "the leading organisation in New Zealand concerned with the preservation and advancement of unique New Zealand European culture." Perhaps an update is in order.

Chapman quote

If anyone has a verifiable source for a quote from Chapman about "police action" then please provide it. The quote does not appear in the NZ Herald articles. Thanks, -Willmcw 02:54, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Any source for the "Rent-a-crowd" comment? If not, it should be removed. -Willmcw 04:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the police described it as a "rent-a-crowd" protest, as quoted on the TV1 News report, october 23rd. Ask TVNZ for a copy of the report from their national archives. As for the other two edits, the NF were surrounded for over 2 hours, against the fence, and again in the train station.. before finaly escaping in assorted cars. Cale olsen was "seriously wounded" and required several stitches, ask the police for the same version. I am reverting to my previous edit as a result. - Molloy

You need to provide evidence for your claims, not just say "look it up" or "ask the police". By the way "serious wounds" require more than a few stitches. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

v. sourced, sourc·ing, sourc·es v. tr. To specify the origin of (a communication); document.

I have provided a source for the "rent-a-crowd" statement, don't claim it is non-existent because you are either to lazy or to ignorant to look it up. The news report reads: "..The National Front was opposed today by what the police describes as a rent-a-crowd protest, some of whom are wearing masks... "

I will relent to your argument against the "serious wounds" quote, but the "surrounded" edit will stand, as it is non-debatable. - Molloy

You've asserted that a source exists. That isn't the same as providing it. As you're the one who wants to include the quote, the onus is on you to provide (provide, not assert the existence of) the proof. -- Vardion 23:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I checked the TVNZ website and they have two reports on the protest. Neither mentions any quote about "rent a crowd." [1] [2] Are you reading from an official transcript? -Willmcw 23:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, you found it for me. The first link you provided ([3]) has a link to a streaming video report, the quote is at the 40 second mark. -Molloy

Good thing you searched a little deeper. I've corrected the text to match the video. -Willmcw 02:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"The white revolution starts here and now" is the correct text for the quote added, I've fixed it. If you watch the video again, you will note the report claims "around 300 people" consisted of the MultiCultral march. I've amended the figure in the article to conform to that report. Molloy

Kyle chapman was quoted as saying "...If someone hurts my child, I'll hurt them...", this was related to the rising home invasion rate, and vigilante patrols planned for Christchurch. It has nothing to do with "retribution", and unless you can prove that it specificly relates to counter-attacks against the MCA or "anti-racist" protesters, I'm removing it. Molloy

He said it to the TV reporter during the protest. The text I added does not link it to the violence, but it is part of the same report and was said on the same day. I missed the part where he talks about home invasions - are you sure he said that? -Willmcw 05:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We're talking about different quotes and speakers. Unfortunately, the audio is sometimes hard to decipher due to background sound. I took better notes this time. Prior to the Chapman appearance the reporter does a stand-up and states that the NF members say they are from working class backgrounds where the lifestyle is not to "turn the other cheek." "They say, 'If attacked they will retaliate and hurt the attacker.'" (time 1:46). Anyway, I'll admit that I mis-noted "retaliation" as "retribution", and misinterpreted the statement. I now understand the reporter implied that she had asked the NF protesters what they would do if attacked by counter-protesters and they had said that they would fight back. "Retribution" sounded as if they'd hunt down their opponents, quite a different thing. It's hardly newsworthy to report that a group will fight back if attacked. I agree that the reference doesn't add anything interesting or relevent. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Substantial?

"The National Front has received a substantial amount of public support over 2004, as exhibited by the nearly 2% vote for the NZNF's leader, Kyle Chapman, in a mayoral election."

I'm not sure that a nearly 2% vote qualifies as substantial public support. Seems like a biased statement to me, what does everyone else think? Ziggurat 03:44, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

2% is a rather large percentage, considering several political groups currently holding seats in government are polling less. It should also be noted that the 2% figure is at least 6 months old, and could very well be higher now. NF leader Kyle Chapman also mentions having people walk up to him and shake his hand daily, you should also read several post-protest reports written by the NF. During the protest against the Pedophille Peter Liddel for example, they talk of many cars tooting and waving, just upon seeing the NF logo. I think that constitues a "substantial ammount" of public support. - Molloy

2% nationally is slightly more significant than 2% in a local election; the political groups in question have in times past received much greater support whereas there is no evidence of this regarding the NF. Sure, it could be higher, it could just as easily be lower. Regarding reports written by the NF, it's probably better to rely on objective measures than potentially-biased word-of-mouth descriptions (doesn't every political party want to believe that their support is substantial?). It's difficult to judge what is a substantial amount, of course, but I'm not personally convinced that 2% constitutes this. Ziggurat 07:04, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

I've reworded the first paragraph to say that 98% voted against him instead. 2% on no objective measure can be considered "Substantial", and in statistics, would likely be considered "statistical noise". In a mayoral election in many places, the diference between 2% and 4% is "Did the boys knock off from the pub in time to get to the poll booth". Furthermore I removed the later sentences as they are unsubstantiated, and the 500 figure has been disproved. They would still be a functional party if they had that number and its widely felt now the national front are historical rather than active. The claims of support are simply propaganderous. The National front are one of the most despised political parties in new zealand. -user:DuckMonster:Duck Monster 14 Sept 2005

Skinhead support quote

You said: "The source for the quote is not verifiable, unless you can provide the name of the author, and prove his link to the NZNF". According to the page ( [4] ) it was you yourself that commented, as "Molloy XX". Was this someone pretending to be you, or are you saying there is another senior member of the NZNF who uses the same alias? Thanks. porges 08:06, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

I never heard of Abovetopsecret before reading that link, and I assure you I did not post that comment, nor is there anyone in the NF using the same alias. I think it's safe to say that the post is faked. Oh, and since we can never tell if its verifiable or not, it does not meet wiki standards for a reputable source, I'm removing it. - Molloy

As much as I dislike agreeing with Molloy, I have to say that he's right about the quote. We can't use an anonymous or unverifiable post on a near-anonymous discussion group as a source. However, I do believe it was Molloy who posted it. SlimVirgin 04:51, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that editor:Molloy takes a strong stand on only allowing verifiable information in articles. -Willmcw 06:49, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Kerry Bolton

There are numerous sources which link Bolton to occult groups. He himself admits involvement. What exactly do we need to do to prove it? It seems abundantly clear. -Willmcw 23:36, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Where does he admit it? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here:[5]. Search for "Bolton". A couple of 'grafs down he responds to rebut an association with pedophilia, but not his leadership of the occult groups. -Willmcw 23:47, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Seems clear enough then. Should Molloy's inaccurate edits be reverted, then? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, but let's give the other editor a chance to respond first. BTW, this Bolton guy is quite a character. Well worth a bio of his own. The list of books his Renaissance Press publishes is remarkable, and that is just one of his many activities. [6] In the global "white nationalist" community, Bolton is apparently a significant figure. -Willmcw 00:00, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Molloy's edit removing the "satanic" phrase [7] is a letter from Bolton himself in which he describes the group (OLHP) as satanic - "a personal crusade against Satanism per se". Agreed that Bolton is an interesting person... will start up a stub. porges 01:22, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the Bolton bio. I see that one was created and deleted last year but problably only because it was very incomplete. There are already a bunch of articles that link to it, which is one sign of Bolton's notability. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:53, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

I just went and looked on the NF site, they don't have Bolton listed as secretary, but someone called "Kylie Roughan". How accurate is the statement on this page then? porges 02:11, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

According to the NZ Herald, Bolton was the secretary as of October 2004. [8] I saw another source (less reliable) which put him as secretary in the early 1990s. Even if he has recently been replaced, he may still be relevant to this article as a long-time officer. -Willmcw 02:18, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

According to a post on the Stormfront forums:[

Re: NF and the election

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molloy I'm sorry to say the NF election process has grinded to a halt due to a pending power struggle within the Head Office ranks. These morons are either illiterate, or completely incompetent with any form of election protocol, and run the NF like a streetgang. They obviously don't know jack sh1t about running a proper organisation, and I smell signs of lefty interference. I'm sick of it.

No offence.

Its a shame you feel that way Molloy. There is no power strugle. The National Secretary has resigned and is forming a new party. Molloy has no facts on this issue and has been given bad information. The Christchurch Election will still be standing 3 people, Wellington are still on track as well. We have had such brake aways many times in the past. The most recent one was when Brent Gebbie left in a huff because he wasnt allowed to be the supreme leader of everone. There is never a leadership strugle, as if there was even a mojority of the active officers wanted me out of the leadership I would resign in a supportive way to allow a new Director to replace me. So there is no dramatic power strugle. Sid has left the Front and some other members may be joining him, such as Molloy obviously. We will still have candidats in Auckland. There will still be a branch in Auckland. When we have all the facts sorted out we will release a report to show what ever has happened.

2508] ...So it seems Bolton left after something happened within NF. porges 02:46, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting. This appears to have occured last month. Perhaps Molloy can add a paragraph on power struggles within the NZNF. ;) In anycase, I think we can leave the paragraph we have and add something like, "longtime national secretary, who recently left office" to bring it up to date, once we get confirmation of Bolton's departure. -Willmcw 03:01, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

I see that Molloy has been on Wiki several times without responding to the issue, so I'm going to go ahead and remove the "alleged". -Willmcw 01:55, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Just so you know, Kerry Bolton returned to the fold a few days after he left... There has been a big split from the Auckland group. Question: Since NZNF is teaming up with the openly nazi WPCA in Australia, shouldn't their category be changed back to a neo-nazi group? 211.31.227.71

Thanks for the update. Seeing that Bolton contributed to the AFP interview made me wonder if he wasn't still closely involved. Do you have any good source for the NZNF outreach in Australia? I've seen a few mentions, but nothing solid enough for this article (beyond what's already here). As for adding the "neo-nazi" category, doing so is almost always controversial and I'm sure it would be again. OTOH, a picture of members giving a stiff-armed salute would carry just about the same message. Cheers, -Willmcw 12:00, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

There's always the photo that was featured in the Dominion Post, but getting a GFDL-licenced version of it may be ... problematic ;) porges 10:43, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

My "alleged" edit was a little bold, I've reviewed the sources and have to agree with Willmcw's pov. For your info, Sid Wilson was National Secretary a couple of months ago, but he stepped down (hence I made mention of a power struggle on SF) and the role was handed back to Kerry. - Molloy

Deaths Head & Skinhead quote

The deathshead gig was hosted by the Southern Cross Hammerskins. Unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt, or provide a reputable source to prove that it was hosted by the NZNF, I'm removing the false allegations.

The "I'm a nazi and fuckin proud of it" video footage is taken from 3 news (or the 60 minutes article that re-ran it) over 2 years ago, not the Oct 23rd, 2004 protest. It was filmed in Christchurch, and if you have a good look, you will recognise some of the buildings in the background are from the Christchurch square.

The FightDemBack link has been removed because it has nothing to do with the article, if you want to create an anti-NF article (or add it to the already exsisting anti-facist article), that is fine by me. But it has no place here.

PS. Take your immaturity somewhere else Henderson. unsigned comment by 06:03, Apr 26, 2005 203.109.147.45

Regarding the concert, it is sourced only from a blog and its press-release, which I would consider to be thin for anything. Since it is disputed, it should certaianly be removed unless there is a better source, like a newspaper, etc, or some other verification. The quote from the footage should be moved into the correct chronological sequence or section, and should have its context established. I couldn't get the video last time I tried. The FightDem Back link belongs because it was apparently established solely to oppose the National Front. Even though we should be careful of using them for a sole source, they are very relevant to the NF. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:15, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've viewed the video and I think it belongs in this article, it was the context I was disputing. I've removed the link to individual articles on the FDB website, viewers can find the info if they require it through the link to the website already provided. I've re-added the "The campaign of intimidation" phrase, I think it puts FDB into perspective. Intimidation is the main tactic of FDB, if you read some of his articles you will see that. (I would compare his website to the "Redwatch Hitlist" the far right in the UK uses). Cheers.

Jason, I've changed that passage again. Please read why (and please note, I am not Darp). Firstly, FDB was not solely created by Darp... a number of australian and new zealand based activists were also involved... As for "a campaign of intimidation," I'd like to dispute that. Never has the address of any WN/NS been published... Never has any phone number of any WN/NS been published... Never has any threat of physical violence towards a WN/NS been published... This is wikipedia, bro, proof is required.

What has been published is a lot of photos of various NZNF members posing in their swastikas (including you, Jason). What has been published is a lot of pro-nazi comments that various NZNF members have made on Stormfront and the like. A campaign of exposure, yes. A campaign of intimidation, no.

If we wanted to see what a campaign of intimdation looks like, young Jason, we would turn to the FDB article devoted to you, which has a full and comprehensive list of all the death threats you've sent to your enemies.

Love and Kisses,

Fight Dem Back.

For some reason, this was removed. Why is that, Jason? FightDemBack 07:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In regards to the "I'm a Nazi" quote, I've changed the date from "2 years ago" to 2004 as it was on both 3 News and 20/20 on TV 3 the night of and a few nights after a NF counter-protest of an Anti-Racism rally in Christchurch early 2004.

--South 03:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DARP

As far as I can tell, all the material in DARP on the NZNF was copied into FightDemBack when that blog was started. Therefore, it makes sense to link just to FDB. The links list is already getting long and duplication makes it longer. DARP is has a big link on FDB so it'll still be easily accessible to readers. -Willmcw 06:40, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I could not agree more.

Is 500 small?

I would say that 500 members is small, when we consider the numbers that the major parties have. Also, they don't actually have 500 members yet. If nobody objects, I'm going to change it back.

After I deleted "large" I saw somewhere that they still have not met the 500-member threshold. Fewer than 500 members, the minimum needed to register as a political party, does indeed seem small. Does anyone know what the actual, official membership number is currently? Cheers, -Willmcw 08:03, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I would think "very small" is even more accurate, but "small" will do. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't have an official source, but last I heard, Kyle was talking about having around 250ish. FightDemBack 23:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that at least gives us a ballpark figure. For a political party that appears to be quite small. -Willmcw 00:05, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

"nazi salute" image

Who actually owns copyright on this image? The Otago Daily Times must have had some kind of deal or something in order to print it... I'd quite like to have it in the article as it is a well-known/publicised image with regards to the NF porges 22:07, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

While we should certainly be respectful of copyrights, it is not clear what the copyright status of the photograph is. It is not published on the NZNF's website, so there is no verifiable corroboration that they hold the copyright. The photographer, who is most likely the actual copyright holder, has not been identified either. Apparently it has been used in a published news story without credit. If it is used for the purpose of discussion and comment of a current event with a size no larger than necessary, then there is a reasonable claim of "fair use". Until we get better information on the copyright of the photo I think that it is justifiable to post the photograph under the fair use rationale. Therefore I have resized the original photo down to a smaller size, and reposted it into the article. -Willmcw 06:02, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Speaking as a legal representative of the New Zealand National Front, I herby advise that the images posted ( Image:NZNFnazisalute.jpg Image:NZNF with banner small.jpg Copyright © 2000-2004 New Zealand National Front. All rights reserved.) is the legal property of the New Zealand National Front, and it's use is restricted by published international copyright treaties and conventions of New Zealand and the United Nations. Legal ownership of the image (in both digital and hardcopy format) was transfered from the original copyright holder, the photographer, to the New Zealand National Front during the month of January, 2005. Use of the image is therefore restricted until ownership of the image is restored to the public domain, or explicit permission is obtained from the New Zealand National Front in writing. In light of my above statement, I will now remove the image from the Wikipedia article.

Excerpt from the Wikipedia image use policy: When you upload an image, make sure you own the image, or that it is in the public domain, or that the copyright holder has agreed to license it under the GFDL. Always note the image's copyright status on the image description page, using one of the image copyright tags, and giving additional information about the origin of the image. If you created the image, don't write image created by me, write image created by John Doe on Jan 1st, 2000 (where you of course replace John Doe with your name, and Jan 1st, 2000 with the date of the image creation).

Use of the images (Image:NZNFnazisalute.jpg Image:NZNF with banner small.jpg) in this article clearly violates Wikipedia policy. Fair use doctrine does not apply, as it only covers articles in the American domain. -Molloy

Molloy, you'll have to show that you're a legal representative of the NZNF, and fair use is anyway claimed for this photograph. Perhaps if someone officially representing the NZNF could provide evidence that they own the copyright, that would be helpful in terms of determining whether fair use can be claimed. That person can contact any of the editors on this page who have provided an e-mail address. I've also placed some information about U.S. copyright law on the image page if you're interested. In the meantime, I'll check with one of the editors who's an expert on fair-use issues and I'll let you know what he says. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:33, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

As the National Front webmaster, I have been given authority to represent the National Front in this matter. Fair use does not apply in this matter as there is no dispute as to who owns the image. It was originaly posted on the National Front MSN group, of which, a member was a reporter for the Dominion Post. The image was then published, and following that, the National Front bought the copyright to the original image to prevent further publication. Posting the image in this article clearly violates the copyright conventions of NZ and abroad.

Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia Image Guidelines: The fair use doctrine used in America (but not in many other jurisdictions) is frequently abused. Try to limit your use of this tag to album covers, book covers, DVD/video covers, movie posters, and corporate logos. If you have questions about whether an image is fair use, ask at Wikipedia:Fair use.

The critical thing to remember -- our use of such images relies on a portion of the doctrine that says we can use a low-resolution public-but-copyrighted image (like an album cover, book cover, or movie poster) for the purpose of illustrating an article. A high-resolution image, suitable for purposes other than illustration/education (such as, say, printing bootleg CD covers), would not be considered fair use and would quickly be put up on Wikipedia:Images for deletion.

Using the Fair Use Doctrine in this situation clearly violates Wiki guidelines, and therefore I will remove the image from this article, and nominate it for deletion. - Molloy

As usual, you have provided no evidence for your claims, which are (quite typically) dubious at best. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I find your recent edits to Adolf Hitler fascinating:[9]. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

New Zealand has a specific exemption in their copyright law for "fair dealing," their equivalent of "fair use". It explicitly allows for reproduction of a work for criticism or review. [10] Boy, that sure is blurry picture. And poorly exposed too. -Willmcw 03:43, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

The link below pretty much says the same thing, threating legal actiong, etc etc. One, this is 2005, so the copyright is gone. Two, Wikipedia is not a place to make legal threats. If there is a legal problem, then there is someone that you are supposed to see. Third, from doing a Google search, I am finding photos from here, here, and an official candidate photo from Candidates for Mayor of Christchurch website. We can use the last photo to show what Kyle Chapman looks like, and that can be easily taken from fair use, since it is a promo photo. I do not know what the copyright with Scopes.co.nz photos, but at least this problem can be solved. Zscout370 (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

There is already a picure of Kyle Chapman included in the article, I don't see any reason to add another. The copyright is valid until 2006, please re-read legal notice. - Molloy

The image of the group holding the banner, Image:NZNF with banner small.jpg, is being used under the "fair dealing" clause of New Zealand law and the "fair use" exemption to U.S. law. It is a perfectly acceptable use. -Willmcw 04:31, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Note: More pictures of the NZNF have been located on Google.co.nz and have been placed at Willmcw's talk page. Zscout370 (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zscout, I replaced the image and made it somewhere between the size Sam put up and the size you reduced it to. Feel free to change the size though if there was a consensus to make it smaller. Perhaps you could say here why you'd prefer to wait until we hear more? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:22, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I mainy prefer to wait for the image copyvio fight to be over before it is re-added. That was why I took this image out and moved the logo up top instead. I know it will be some will cheer about and some will get angry about, but I think that disputed information (mainly, this photo) should not be included until the copyvio debate is over. I see this done at several other articles, so that was why I did what I did. Though, as Slim and others (including myself) pointed out that finding the original copyright will be hard, since this image was taken three years ago and have been used on various forums and newsreports. It will be hard to find the copyright. Though, I do want to point out to Malloy that if you have legal issues with us, find the right channels to use it, instead of here. There is a policy on Wikipedia to not make legal threats to other users, though there is a channel in Wikipedia to address legal issues. Zscout370 (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I replaced the image with Will's cropped and blurred version as there are good editorial and legal reasons for it. Less sure about the cutline though. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:41, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Legal reasons aside, I do not see the validity in using this image to create a first impression on readers. First of all, it does not represent the beliefs of most National Front members, secondly, most people in the photograph are no longer members of the Front, thirdly, I can think of a host of more representative images to use, and finaly, the picture is over 3 years old (A lot has changed since then). I also think the Logo should claim top spot on this page, as it is the dominating factor. - Molloy

Is there an "approved" photo of NZNF activities that we can use? One which is recent and represents the beliefs of most members? The logo is kind of generic National Front. -Willmcw 11:08, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Who owns the copyright to the Olsen pic? Is this what the NZNF believes in? -Willmcw 11:35, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Scoop owns the copyright, but I'm using it under the "Fair Use" clause. Two can play at this game. - Molloy

Glad to see you accept "Fair Use" and have dropped your spurious legal claims. Now, about that picture of Olson, how do we know his injuries didn't happen in some bar fight? Jayjg ^(talk) 12:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

In no way is the National Front backing down from taking legal action taken against the Wiki collective. As for Cale Olson, your ignorance disgusts me. You obviously don't know anything about this article, because it even links to this website which hosts a lot of images showing him being beaten and walking away: [11] - Molloy

So, you are deliberately doing something you believe to be illegal? Jayjg ^(talk) 12:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You certainly have a way of twisting words. - Molloy

What words am I twisting? You insist it is illegal, you claim to be planning legal action against others for doing it, yet you are doing it yourself. Is it illegal or not? If so, why are you doing it? Jayjg ^(talk) 12:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

By using a photo under the "Fair Use" doctrine, Molloy, as a representative of the NZNF, no longer has "clean hands" and prejudices any attempt by him to sue for improperly using an NZNF photo under fair use. Regarding the Cale Olson photo, it is fairly certain that the injury came during the confrontation following the MultiCultural Aotearoa march in 2004, though exactly how the wound was inflicted is not known. Again, I'm not sure how this photo represents the NZNF beliefs better than the banner picture does, or how it helps the article. -Willmcw 00:04, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

A person from the NF getting hurt might not be something we can put in here. Sure, we can say that there have been some events that the NF particpated in became violent and people got hurt. But a picture of someone with injuries is probably not needed. It might be a copyvio picture, it could be used to show "NZNF matyrs" or "this is what happens to NZNF scum," producing a war that will never end. Though, I did find a copy of the photo used in the article with the group saluting. It was from the blog of Fight Dem Back. [12]. This just proves that the picture is everywhere, and it can be claimed as fair use (as a promotion photo). I probably know that other photos like these have been put on various Neo-Nazi/Press/Other websites, so we have no clue to who took the picture when and what possible copyright, if at all. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Legal Notice From the New Zealand National Front

Legal notice from the NZNF: [13] - Molloy

Members Pages

What are people's thoughts on pages for some of the other members?

There are individual pages for people like Kyle Chapman and Kerry Bolton, but other major players have lived diverse and interesting lives too... What would people think of pages dedicated to the exploits and wacky adventures of such major NZNF players as:

Jason Molloy, official NZNF legal representative. Troy Cullinane, Hamilton Representative Cale Olsen, Palmerston North rep Brendon Rimmer, NZNF Youth Leader and founder of the New Zealand Nazi Militia? And many more...

I think these would help make the Wikipedia a better and more well-rounded encyclopedia, don't you? We owe it to Wikipedia to make it as comprehensive as possible! Thoughts, anyone? FightDemBack 12:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it sounds like a good idea. However, I do want to express concern about a page about Malloy. Malloy, as we know, is also a Wikipedian. I believe there is a policy of not editing articles that deal about yourself. The user can discuss details, but not actively edit the article. Zscout370 (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem with minor figures is that there may not be much verifiable information available. I know that Nic Miller has been in the paper a few times because of his prosecution. What about those others? Perhaps it'd be better to start by adding paragraphs devoted to those for whom we can find sources, and then, if any grow beyond a paragraph, they can be moved to a separate article. Cheers, -Willmcw 15:56, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

And how many minor figures does FDB want to add. There are few information on most people. I am fine with the article on Kyle, but with the other users, from what I read above, now I am not so sure we can pull that off. Zscout370 (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that information about members should be added here first, then if they grow to something substantial, moved elsewhere. It's not clear to me how many members of this tiny movement are actually notable; I suspect very few. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

+1 for Jayjg's note. I've hardly heard anything about people in the NF apart from Bolton/Chapman. porges 00:59, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Zscout370 (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that paragraphs can be added to this page about the ones there's credible published information on, which likely isn't many of them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:56, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a hitist, so I don't see the point. A page on Kyle Chapman & Kerry Bolton will suffice. - Molloy

I do not think the main intent was to create a hit list, though most likely, the only pages we will have on NZNF members are Chapman and Bolton. Zscout370 (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

A HIT LIST! I'm shocked and appalled by this allegation, Seargent Molloy! Absolutely shocked and appalled. Surely we can work out some sort of compromise. I note that Nic Miller was recently promoted to Officer position... surely he's noteworthy? FightDemBack 11:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have the IQ of a small child, so I will spell it out for you once and for all: Nic Miller was expelled from the National Front earlier this year. Here is a quote from the Sunday Star Times: "One member, Nicholas Miller, who has been charged with an attack on Somalian immigrants, was expelled last week." [14] - Molloy

Interesting point to note is that FDB just posted falsified information that I disproved immediately with a credible source. Why the hell should we tolerate his biased POV? - Molloy

Oh, I just wanted to see if the offical NZNF line on Miller was still the same.. Miller's been expelled a number of times, but he's always been one of Kyle's favourites. I'm sure he'll be back when you don't have to worry about getting 500 members anymore. As for biased POVs, Pot. Kettle. Black. You've threatened to kill FDB members on a number of occasions, Jason, why should anyone tolerate your biased POV? FightDemBack 05:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

If death threats were made, I encourage you (strongly) to bring it to the attention of the local authorities, but please keep this exchange out of Wikipedia and let's focus on the article's content (such action, of course, may then become part of the article's content). El_C 08:25, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have mistaken me for someone else. I suggest you re-evaluate the quality of your "intelligence" network - Molloy

Oh, that's pretty rich, Mr. Wolfwitz! FightDemBack 11:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Note

As many of you will have noticed, the user Jayjg often comes and reverts valid statements & contributions made in this article, leaving no good reason whatsoever. It only takes 5 minutes to discover his trail of blatant POV is saturated all throughout Wikipedia, anyone looking at his Talk page, or the ADL talk page will quickly realize that. An interesting point to note is that Jayjg himself is a Jew, so will be often found vandalising articles like this to suit his own personal taste (IE: Anti-Nationalist, Pro-Leftist, Pro-Marxist, Pro-Jewish, Pro-Anarchist, Pro-Liberal...). - Molloy

Gosh, Molloy, that looks suspiciously like a personal attack to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not see any part of my above statement that constitutes, or even hints of a personal attack, nor does any part of it violate Wikipedia guidelines. I am simply informing others of your biased tendencies. - Molloy

LOL! I suggest you read the policy more carefully. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I worked with Jayjg on many pages and he is none of the above of what Malloy pointed out. Plus, unless Jayjg told others in various forums, we have no clue if he is of the Jewish faith or not. Zscout370 (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

From his pro-Zionist POV edits to the ADL article, it is more than obvious. In fact,to be entirely sure, I'll get to the point and ask him directly. Jayjg, are you Jewish? - Molloy

Cut it out, Molloy. Wikipedia talk pages aren't the place for National Front members to start hunting down particular ethnicities. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:55, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, No personal attacks and No legal threats. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

"Hunting down particluar ethnicities"? Is that a bad joke? I am simply pointing out the fact that Jayjg is Jewish, how on earth can that be considered Anti-Semetic? It has obvious relevance to this article, because a Jew will have a natural distaste for the National Front, and is therefore more likely to insert POV claptrap. On another note, I've redirected the legal battle to the appropriate section. - Molloy

I'd say most people have a distaste for them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

But, where is your proof of Jayjg being Jewish. I edit articles on Russia and the Pope, so does make me a Communist Catholic? I do not think so, so I would quit on that accusation if I were you. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting how you use the word "Accusation". It is not an accusation, I'm just making facts known! - Molloy

Which is the section you've directed the legal issue to? I don't see anything new about it on this page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:24, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting comment from a Wiki admin on the ADL talk page: You have been blocked for violating the 3 revert rule. But you're right -- we're biased on Wikipedia against white supremacists, holocaust deniers, and racists in general. Get used to it; it's not going to change. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) - Molloy

Molloy, I think this will be on interest to you: "Dealing with grievances -

If you think an administrator has acted improperly against you or another editor, you should express your concerns directly to the administrator responsible. Try and come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. However, if the matter is not resolved between the two parties, you can take further action according to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. There have been a number of alternative procedures suggested for the removal of sysop status but none of them have achieved consensus." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:41, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

A National Front publication photo

I personally think that if a publication is used here, then we should just use a logo, and perhaps link to an actual copy of the publication. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll look around for a better example. - Molloy

Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

How is that? - Molloy

Perfect. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:41, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

FightDemBack is not a "reputable publication" as required by Wikipedia Policy. It should not be used as a source. - Molloy

We don't usually use blogs (good or bad) as sources. Is there some particular edit that you're referring to? -Willmcw 07:28, May 16, 2005 (UTC) [No offense intended to bloggers. -W]

The last claim by FightDemBack that the publication image was used originaly in the German Nazi Party propaganda campaign. A rather ridiculous claim considering I created the image myself. - Molloy

Are you suggesting it was forged by them? El_C 07:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

What was forged by them? I have no idea what you are talking about, I have seen no evidence that it was used in the Nazi Party campaign. When I produced the image, I used several NSDAP posters for ideas, so some similarities may result, but that was not intended, and it is NOT the same image. - Molloy

Let's just post both images and let readers make up their own minds. -Willmcw 07:53, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. El_C 07:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the point, this is not an article on the NSDAP. If readers want to know where the image originated they can do their own research. I suggest if you want to make any further comments on the origins of the image you do it on the image page itself, not in the caption. Cheers. - Molloy

I reject that suggestion. I find it quite topical as per the controversies surrounding the NZNF, I am not willing to limit the reference to the image page, and I insist on it being included in the caption (at the very least), if not having the original inspiration displayed alongside it. El_C 08:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I have moved your claims to the image page [15] - Molloy

I will revert that, and I suspect that others will, too. El_C 08:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Chilling. Even more chilling that you admit to having produced it, Molloy. It definitely deserves to be in the cutline. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:16, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

The comments should be in the appropriate section, namely the Image page. Molloy

That's a negative. Also, make sure you adhere to 3 revert rule policy or you may be blocked for 24 hrs per violation. El_C 08:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Which you just seem to have violated. El_C 08:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

And somehow you are immune from the same policy? I think not. You were the first to break 3 revert rule policy . - Molloy

I only used 3 reverts — SlimVirgin reverted that last time. Feel free to report me on a 3RR violation though; I have issued my notice of your three revert violation here. El_C 08:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The information about the image is clearly relevant in an editorial sense, Molloy, so don't be obtuse. That the poster was copied from the Nazis tells us something about the NZNF, not just something about the image. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:44, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

An overwhelming number of editors seem to think so, whereas User:Molloy warns against violating 3RR, and mere moments later is resorted to doing so himself due to a pronoucned lack of support. El_C 09:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd say leave it as it is after the latest edit (21:00, May 16, 2005, by User:The Anome). Readers can visit the link and make their minds up for themselves. Oh, and if the image was produced by Molloy then what was Bolton's contribution? Did he write the content? porges 09:29, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I missed all the action! You made that image, Molloy? Funny, I could have sworn that it was first used by Bolton for New Force before you were even born. And by the nazi party before he was even born... I agree with Porge, that seems fair enough... Oh, and no offence taken, Will. FightDemBack 11:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I warned User:Molloy not to violate the 3RR (he hadn't yet), which he dismissed on the basis of a mistaken notion that I have (irrelevant even if true; but false, I have never violated 3RR, ever), then he went on to violate it. Then I reported him for 3RR violation and he was duly blocked for 24 hrs. All in all, an exciting 20 minutes. El_C 10:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours? It looks to me like he's still reverting things as user:202.74.196.82. FightDemBack 11:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

That was on the 16th. But what evidence do you have that they are the same user? Thanks. El_C 11:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Molloy has been posting on the FDB forums [16] this evening using that IP... FightDemBack 11:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see (though it's nothing that I, myself, can substantiate). El_C 13:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Logo Position

All the other articles on NZ political parties: Maori, Act, National and Labour all use the logo at the top of the page, I think it's only fair to provide continuity. - Molloy

If we had photographs of the others doing Nazi salutes, those would be at the top of their pages too, rest assured. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:31, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't checked the diffs yet, but I think you've violated 3RR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:33, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

This is my idea: why not have the logo at top, since I do agree with the uniformity. However, we can have the Nazi salute photo at the section that states the criticism of the group. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the current positioning is OK, as for Slim's comments, we have picures of Don Brash covered in Mud, why not use that at the top of the National page? - Molloy

Don Brash? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

More pictures are better, within limits. Cheers, -Willmcw 02:08, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Perfect! Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:12, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

salute style

Rain on an umbrella

The roman salute is the Nazi Party salute. See Roman salute. porges 03:04, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ah. Maybe it should say "NZNF Members, with some saluting." However, though the Romans used it, many see it (now) as the Nazi salute. Same with the swastika: Hindu's used it before it was hijacked by the Nazi's. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The NSDAP adopted the original Roman salute for their own use. They are seperate entities, use of one does not constitue condonence for any ideological beliefs that may happen to be tied to the other. (Maybe I'm just being picky) - Molloy

You are not picky Molloy, you are just stating fact. I know the NSDAP hijacked other symbols too, so I think we are just getting at the tip of the iceberg. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

In any case, it's be correct to say simply that they are saluting. We don't have to decide how to characterize the salute. -Willmcw 03:19, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

I think we should let readers decide for themselves, it's quite obvious from looking at the image to see that the NF members are saluting. Telling readers they are saluting is a little like pointing out the color of Kyle Chapmans shoes. - Molloy

Actually, it's called a caption — see also: rain, parade. El_C 09:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm yes, but notice the umbrella is green, and the grass is patchy... why don't you include that in the caption too... - Molloy

Because it's untopical. El_C 10:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Plus, we cannot talk about Chapman's shoes since they are not in the photo. Well, we can put in the "criticism" category that sometimes, a few members of the NZNF display Nazi symbols, including the swastika and the "Heil Hitler" salute (see photo to the right). Now, I just need a few sources to back this up, unless they are listed already. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

"The NSDAP adopted the original Roman salute for their own use. They are seperate entities, use of one does not constitue condonence for any ideological beliefs that may happen to be tied to the other." The point I was trying to get at, just as people don't use the swastika without regard now due to its negative connotations, the same with the salute. It's too early in the morning for me to put this properly :P porges 00:26, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

If the NZNF adopted the Roman salute independently of the Italian and German fascists, then it would be interesting to find out why. The salute does not need to be described for those who see the image. However not all users will necessarily see the image, either due to using a text-only browser or due to blindness. Captions serve as alternate text in those instances. -Willmcw 00:43, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

The salute does not need to be described for those who see the image. -- Why? This is a good place not to be Europe/USA centered. Not everyone on the planet is aware of the Nazi salute and I see it as our duty as editors of encyclopedia to explain possibly dangerous gestures even if they are obvious for us. In the spirit of NPOV, we don't have to call it "the Nazi salute", perhaps "gesture resembling the Nazi salute". They look like adults who have conscientiously made their free choice, and today's denials are just silly. That applies to their free choice of the poster too. Or maybe the "others" made them do it? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we what could put there is "Members of the NZNF, with some saluting." We can explain in the citicism section that deals with them possibly being neo-Nazis that they sometimes display Nazi symbols, including the "Heil Hilter" salute (see photo on the right/left/whatever position it is). I do agree that unless we explain what is going on, some might not see the issue. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Anyone else agree? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Since the FDB site has at least one more photo of a NZNF member giving a stiff-arm salute, this can be generalized. We already have a sentence about them being accused of being neo-nazis. We could add to that another sentence that says something like "NZNF members have been photographed giving the Roman salute adopted by the Nazis." -Willmcw 21:26, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Is there other documentation about the use of other Nazism symbols? On FDB, I have seen a person use the previous South Africa flag, but I do not know if that is something racist or not. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

There are these two photos [17][18] on FDB. Even though Molloy states that the NZNF uses the stiff arm salute for reasons that are independent of the Nazis, they nonetheless avoid using it in public. -Willmcw 02:34, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Uh....call me crazy but I still think they use it for Nazi purposes. Though, another thing that strikes me odd is that behind Molloy, there are two flags: the Nazi Germany Naval Ensign and the Naval Ensign from Imperial Germany. Plus, with those symbols behind him, I still think (in my POV) that the salutes still are being used in connection with Neo-Nazism. Though, if they want to clean up the image, they made a wise move not to show them in public. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Molloy states many things, but few of his statements are particularly plausible. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I find this all rather amusing, considering I feature in none of the images linked above. I will say, however, that FDB's comments are defamatory and bordering on harrasment. - Molloy

Oh, and by the way, I thought we all agreed to not use FDB as a source, or at least quote allegations posted on his website as fact, as all his material is obviously biased. - Molloy

Blackmask

Okay, so the Blackmask think the NZNF is a facist organization. It is true that they are some people. On the other hand, some people think the NZNF is a facist organization. This does not make those people the Blackmask, Molloy. It's quite POV to say that the Blackmask hacked the NZNF page, and not give any justification for their actions. And it's quite POV to not mention that a large number of people, not affiliated with the Blackmask, also oppose the NF for similar reasons. FightDemBack 10:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, clearly, if there were political reasons behind the hack, they must be mentioned. El_C 10:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll clean it up a bit. Molloy

Question...

One of the policies is "Return to farm-based economy". Didn't Pol Pot try to acheive this for Cambodia, or am I mistaken? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Knowing farmers and political parties, I'm willing to guess that the NZNF does not have many farmers in its ranks. I imagine the reason for this policy is a nostalgia for the good old days, a motivation which probably inspires several of the policies. The list really should be ordered better. The core policies of the group should be separated from the lower priorities. -Willmcw 02:42, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Plus, I figure New Zealand's main industry (to my knowledge) is tourism. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

You are joking, right? New Zealand's largest industry is agriculture, followed closely by forestry. - Molloy

FDB

I think we can all agree that FDB is a biased source, and should not be quoted as fact. A lot of the information released by FDB is personal (and also falisifed somewhat) in nature. This information includes names and photographs of National Front members. (Including a NF member under the age of 18) These photos have been spread around the net in an attempt to intimidate NF members into silence. This almost resembles a hitlist, and is most surely criminal in nature. I should also state that several NF members have recieved rather severe threats from members and supporters of Matthew Henderson's group, and complaints have been laid with authorities in both New Zealand and Australia. There have also been cases in Wellington of National Front supporters being stalked & sometimes physicaly attacked by Anarchists, no doubt affiliated with FDB. Detective Sutton of Aucklands CIB recently commented to this author that FDB's illegal movements "somewhat alarming", and "should be put an end to". A complete NF investigation and associated press release is pending.

Here is an example of FightDemBack posting a NF supporters address on the internet [19] linked from this page [20]. His name & photo is also posted on the same website.

Publication of these details leave NF members wide open to attack, here is coverage by the NZ Herald of death threats sent by email to a National Front member, a mother of three young children. [21] he MCA moved quickly to condemn the attacks, but FDB remained silent. I should also point out that supporters of FDB have also threatened physical violence against the National Front, on FDB's official website no less. [22] (registration req) I will copy the comments below:

"This group will ... be PHYSICALLY opposing the National Front and all other outwardly racist groups, ...we don’t do posturing or idol threats. We are organised to act."

So, the FDB are posting details of people online, death threats have been received, and now a supporting group say they are prepared and organised to carry out those threats! It all sounds rather intimidating (and somewhat criminal) to me! - Molloy

Once again, if FBD is issuing death threats to you and the NZNF, take this to the police, not here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Complaints have been laid with the police, here is an example of a NF supporters address being posted on the internet: [23] (Click on the link named "Renee Nelson's address confirmed in the White Pages") - Molloy

Ok. Does the website Death's Head is working with FDB or no? If so, that should be noted. If not, then we should say that FBD displays some of the same material from Death's Head, etc. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, nice timeline you got there, pal! FightDemBack 10:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Could Molloy please clarify a few things:

• 1. Where has FDB published "falsified" information?

• 2. If we're going to include the instance in which NF addresses were published, I feel it should be in the context of that publication: alerting journalists and the public to a neo-nazi gig being put on by the NZNF.

• 3. Is FDB a credible source or not, Jase? You say it's not, but then you offer comments on the forum up as evidence to back your ideas up... What can and can't be used from the FDB forum. For example, can we use this MSN transcript?

"Kyle says: some lefty jew is trying to gather files on us and we need someone to befriend him and get information on him. he is actualy a jew

Kyle says: Name: Robert Trigan PH: 0## #### ##### Location: Wellington Email: roberttrigan@gmail.com

Kyle says: we are gathing a file on him

(Trigan? Never heard of him)

Kyle says: yeah me either till this week. he went to the media and got the RSA against us. he claims jewish family shit and it linked with the commies like DARP. he runs the Fight Dem Back in Wellington. maybe NZ. the plan is to actualy set up branches of the Fight Dem back with our own people

Kyle says: they are building information when it is finnished it will have names pics and addresses of our members in NZ and Aussi. when this happens we want to have names and addresses of them to either take them out or plaster all over the net. but we are getting to that stage where it will just be time to send the boys around"

I mean, what's acceptable to you, Jason?

• 4. I'm concerned that you might be a little biased, Jason. Could you please explain this quote on Stormfront inre The Zionism Article: "It's been removed several times, but I recently had the backing of two other Wikipedians so It may stay up. If it is removed again, it would help if someone else from here could re-insert it, just to establish the illusion that the majority of editors support the image." [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=183229&page=3&pp=10&highlight=wikipedia]
  • My Opinion: Personally, I do not think it will be a good idea for Jason to bring in people from the Stormfront to enforce their will on the Wikipedia article. I wish to explain why. I was involved in a recent defusing of an edit war at Perverted-Justice.com. People from both sides of the debate came in, edited the article, causing the war. People from the PeeJ website called in others through a special message (now removed) to edit the site in their favor. If something like this was going to be done on that article, or even this one, it will probably result in pages being locked and involved too many people to sort the messes out. I probably should just see what the debate is, though I think I might have seen the image in question before. Plus, if Jason is calling in people from outside the Wiki to edit on his behalf, I would not be surprised to if some type of dicipline action is taken. So, I suggest just everyone find their sources, state their facts and just see what we can do that is acceptable to nearly everyone. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

If it gives you any comfort, Jason, we at FDB don't have any intention of publishing any WN addresses when the main site launches... As we've stated in the past, we don't want a Redwatch/Hatewatch situation like in the UK or the States. We're the good guys here, Jason. You've got more to worry about from your so-called friends than us. FightDemBack 04:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Molloy, you neglected to mention several things. Firstly, FDB is not Matthew Henderson's group, but rather a group that Matthew (along with a number of others) are involved with. The Deaths Head website had nothing whatsoever to do with Fight Dem Back - It was an autonomous action by a handful of people, some (not all) of whom now happen to be involved in FDB. In fact, FDB did not yet exist as a functioning group at the time when the Deaths Head press release was put out. FDB made no comment on the death threats because, at the time of the article (05.10.2004), FDB did not exist! You knew that Molloy, so why write otherwise? The group who posted "This group will ... be PHYSICALLY opposing the National Front and all other outwardly racist groups, ...we don’t do posturing or idol threats. We are organised to act." is NOT FDB, and nor is it connected to FDB in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER. The poster of this comment goes by the alias AFA, standing for Anti-Fascist Action, and is seeking to create a completely seperate group from FDB. They simply used the public FDB forum to advertise for support. You knew all this, Molloy, and yet still you neglected to mention it in order to create a false impression. Posted by Asher (in the spirit of full disclosure, I am connected with FDB) 02:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

WPCA and NZNF

I know the blog FDB has talked about this link, but based on a Google search (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=WPCA+NZNF&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt), I think the Stormfront White Nationalist Community is pretty much saying the same thing. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow. What is being said about the WPCA? -Willmcw 17:26, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

The WPCA, the White Pride Coalition (of) Australia, is said to be associates of the NZNF. See http://www.whiteprideco.com/main.htm. Under the heading Affiliated Groups appears the name NZ National Front (eg, this group). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok that is good enough evidence for me, I'll withdraw my statement. - Molloy

Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Source for quote

What's the source for this quote?

FDB uses what the National Front descibes as a "campaign of intimidation in an attempt to silence National Front members."

Thanks, -Willmcw 05:05, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

NZNF and $10,000 Funding

The part about the allocated ten grand becomes officially irrelevant in... 8 days.

When that happens, should that paragraph be removed... or amended with something like, "As the National Front failed to get 500 members, they... don't get any funding."

It makes more sense to me to just ditch the whole paragraph. Thoughts, fellow editors? FightDemBack 11:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

We can say "The NZNF attempted to register 500 members in order to receive a $10,000 NZD grant from (where?). However, after X date, the NZNF failed to reach that goal by only having X people registered." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we should also mention what timeframe that this had to take place in, and we should try to have sources from whoever is giving out the funding. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's better to include information about the grant and its terms. I'd once found an NZ government election website that had some info on party registration and such. If I canfind it again, they may have the standard rules, if there are any, for this type of grant. -Willmcw 21:55, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

The funding was from the Electoral Commission, who's website with details of party registreation is located at http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/how_to_71A.html posted by Asher 02:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

note

I've quit the NF so you won't see me editing this article very often, I'll still keep an eye on it in order to prohibit it from becoming to 'anti'. - Molloy

Thatnks for your contributions to the article. Cheers, -Willmcw 18:08, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Knitting circle

Dig www.fightdemback.com for what some of the NF have been up to. Is this incident worthy of inclusion in the article? FightDemBack 10:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Since the two NZNF members were arrested together that makes it seem more NZNF-related. Since the NZNF claims to practice non-violence, that makes it seem relevant. (Is Molloy still involved with the NZNF - he'd written (above) that he had broken ties to the group.) Anyway, it appears to be worth a sentence or two. -Willmcw 19:12, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

More knitting circle... Ross Baumgarten's (head of NF Youth) name suppression in relation to his alleged involvement in the Auckland mosque vandalism has been lifted. [[24]]

The article can't mention the first person arrested for their involvement, as their name is still suppressed... Should something about this go in 'activities', or might it be worth creating a new section, like 'illegal activities.' FightDemBack 05:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Not that the FDB blog isn't a wealth of info, but for the encyclopedia we're looking for more brick and mortar-type sources. The other day I searched for any mention of Molloy's arrest in online NZ newspapers and couldn't found anything. Anything independent? Cheers, -Willmcw 05:20, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, here's an article that names Baumgarten [25], and calls Sid Wilson the new NZNF head. -Willmcw 05:24, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'm looking for something about the firearms charge, but I don't think there was anything online... I can probably find someone with a scanned newspaper cutting. FightDemBack 09:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep the cuttings handy. However, unless challenged, it'd be sufficient to simply note the source. For a POV assertion or anything assertive say, "The NZ Herald reported that..." Nobody can complain about a properly sourced assertion. In the long run we are still an encyclopedia so we can wait a few months or years for the clear facts to emerge. Sooner is better, of course. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:38, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Nothing about Chapman/Foljambe standing in the 2005 general elections for the Direct Democracy party?

That'd be more appropriate on the pages for Chapman/Foljambe, wouldn't it? For those not following kiwi politics, Chapman is number 10 for DDP and Folly is number 20. FightDemBack 12:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

WPCA & NZNF Mark 2.

So, can anybody explain to me why this article says that the NZNF is affiliated with the PYL and Oz First, while they're "listed as an affiliate" of the WPCA.

It seems to me that being listed as an affiliate of the WPCA is the same as being an affiliate of the WPCA - and when we consider the fact that Chapman has outright said that the NZNF and WPCA are affiliates (on Stormfront) I don't see any reason why the sentence couldn't just read:

The NZNF is an affiliate of the PYL, Oz First and the WPCA.

Hey?

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. — Stlemur 12:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Deathshead Gig

User Fightdemback has provided information that breaks the offical wikipedia policy of no original research. He has also taken into disregard the concept of citing his sources and verifiability. Please take measures to rectify this situation before re-inserting the erroneous information at hand. - VeNom

How about I just wait until you've been sentenced and don't have internet access anymore? I cited the FightDemBack website as a source. Since information from this website has been used as the source for myriad newspaper and television reports, it makes sense that it can be used here. FightDemBack 06:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Sentenced? I'm not quite sure what you are refering to. As of yet, I don't see any credible evidence that the National Front organized this gig. As for the research by FightDemBack, unfortunatly the Wikipedia rule of no original research applies. You cannot cite yourself as a source. - VeNom

I agree with VeNom's conclusion, though not his logic. Citing oneself is not the problem - citing ones blog is the problem. Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Using online sources is the appropriate policy citation, IMO. As I've said before on different occasions - I respect the reporting of the FightDemBack blog, and its author(s). I personally believe that is is a reliable source. But for this encyclopedia project we don't allow blogs as secondary sources. Furthermore this is a long term project so if it takes a year or two to find out who was involved in what then we're still on schedule. Let's try to keep our article to what can be summarized from the larger media. If we look carefully, we may find that some FDB material is itself sourced, so we could follow the ciatations back to the primary source. -Willmcw 08:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

History & Activities

The article now has two separate sections - "History" & "Activities". Many of the activities (mosque attack, David Irving) were one time events and so are better classified as history. Only the ongoing activities (website, t-shirts) should be under "Activities". Does that make sense? -Willmcw 08:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Molloy

Just a quick note for those who frequent this page - You might be interested to know that Jason Molloy (who has edited this page a lot) is now in jail for the Mosque attacks mentioned on this page. See http://www.fightdemback.org/2005/11/29/off-to-the-bighouse/ for details.

Thanks for the info. While I don't agree with the NZNF, I do care for the welfare of Wikipedia editors. Let's hope that he's safe and learns the cost of violent actions. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern. Prison is a sh*thouse for all those who'd like to know. - Molloy

The NZNF are lowlife criminals.

The NZNF have been condemned, most notably at an anti-racism rally here in Wellington in October 2004. I was one of the speakers, because as I am a retired constitutional ally to former Governor-General Sir Michael Hardie Boys, I felt that I couldn't remain silent, especially in light of the despicable racial attacks on the Jewish gravestones. I am one who believes very strongly that the Race Relations Act, 1971 should be amended to proscribe any political organisation that promotes racism, & for the death penalty to be imposed on the leaders of such organisations. Another organisation that has proved the case for proscription is the Maori Party, which is promoting some very Britanniphobic policies similar to that of ZANU-PF & Sinn Féin/I.R.A. - (Aidan Work 06:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC))

Suggest edit

I suggest the paragraph below be re-worded. I checked the website and it longer has many of the points that the below article makes. For example it has downloads of flyers and has nothing for sale.

"The NZNF operates a website to promote the party. It lists party policies, has a few free downloads of flyers, and links to an affilited forum and other affiliated groups. It also offers for sale T-shirts, hats, and books on topics of interest to NZNF members, some written by Kerry Bolton. Among the flyers for sale are those titled: "Abortion is genocide", "Zionism is Racist", "NZ Workers sacrificed to coolie labour", and "Family – Folk – Nation". The list of books for sale includes: The Kosher Connection: Drugs, Israel, Gangsters & Zionism; Protocols of the Elders of Zion; We of the white Race – the Coming New Reformation; Madison Grant's The Passing of the Great Race; Lothrop Stoddard's Rising Tide of Colour; and Adam: the First white Man."

Rather than deleting mention of previous activities it'd be better to say simply that these were former activities. -Will Beback 21:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't my intention to delete previous talk post. In terms of the paragraph mentioned above it is ovious it needs changing.

I have changed the article mentioned above. Re-worded is a better word to use. A more experienced editor may wish to go through it and give it a bit more flow.

Slightly biased?

Overall the article looks good, but in the "Activities" section I feel the viewpoint is slightly biased towards Maori and Pacific Islanders:

"Waitangi Day: Wellington and Auckland held demonstrations against the Treaty of Waitangi and the alleged privileges Māori enjoy relative to Pākehā. Māori and Pacific Islanders suffer from below average wages, housing, and health."

In reference to the quote section, I believe that if there is to be a side-note saying that Maori and Pacific Islanders are disadvantaged in areas of wages, housing and health, then it also needs to be included that Maori and Pacific Islanders are in fact actually offered extra opportunities that other races aren't, such as:

Wider age bracket for government funded tai-chi programme http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesmh/5271/$File/dpedlow.pdf Monetary scholarships http://www.takoa.co.nz/govt_scholar1.htm Healthcare opportunities: http://hcro.enigma.co.nz/website/index.cfm?fuseaction=articledisplay&FeatureID=419#Priority%20Areas%20for%20Health%20Care%20for%20Maori

Whether or not this is justified is another point, but if nothing else, the word "alleged" needs to be removed as priveliges are indeed given to Maori and Pacific Islanders that other races do not receive.

So, they're disadvantaged in the areas of wages, housing and health but they have a government funded tai chi program. I think it's pretty fair to say they'd rather it was the other way around - it's not biased. Drett 00:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I alluded to before, the fact that Maori have lower average wage, housing and health standards aren't necessarily hereditary as much cultural, but the article needs to reflect that Maori do currently receive a range of privileges that other races don't receive, not just limited to the list I posted earlier, but so that the article shows that the party is protesting against these extra options open only to Maori, as opposed to merely showing the party as being completely unreasonably racist.

The party is completely unreasonably racist though - they're neo-Nazis. Can you explain what you mean by Maori disadvantage being cultural - are you suggesting that the Maori themselves are to blame for it? Drett 14:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a possibility, but causality is not the issue - the fact is that the aforementioned section states that "Māori and Pacific Islanders suffer from below average wages, housing, and health." If the article is to mention that, then it also needs to be shown that the country is currently spending a significant amount of money on the symptoms of the problem - the fact that Maori and Pacific Islanders are disadvantaged in some areas. What's wrong with removing the word "alleged" if Maori and Pacific Islanders do receive privileges relative to everyone else? While I think of it, I think the word "Pakeha" needs to be changed as well as it creates the picture of a White vs Black issue, and New Zealand has much more cultural depth than just European and Maori descendants.

If nobody else wants to discuss for or against my suggestion, and seeing as I haven't had a reply in a couple of days, I believe this amendment should be made, and will remove the work "alleged" from the previously mentioned section in a few more days if nobody else has anything to say 222.152.180.180 05:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Change made, if anybody feels it should be reverted please post here first 210.86.107.27 06:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The sentence no longer makes sense. Now it says that maori are priviledged and immediately afterwards makes it clear that they are in fact disadvantaged. The word alleged should be replaced. Drett 14:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As we are still discussing this I will replace the word alleged for the time being.

Maori are priveliged in some areas and disadvantaged in others. How does this not make sense?222.152.243.40 03:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Overall, maori are disadvantaged. A wider age bracket for government funded tai chi programs does not change that. Furthermore, in this context it is not wider age brackets for government funded tai chi programs that the NF objects to, but their delusional belief that there is a cabal of influential maori keeping the white man down. Drett 21:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That is why the article should still reflect that Maori are disadvantaged, but still acknowledge that they do receive special priveliges. This specific section of the article at the moment makes it sound like Maori are disadvantaged and don't receive any help at all, which is not the case. If you read my first post (and maybe look into the issue more) there is far more than just a tai chi program, however this is a specific example just to demonstrate how widespread the Maori priveliges are. You'll find that there are quotas for Maori working as teachers, and as I mentioned before, monetary academic scholarships and healthcare systems that cater specifically to Maori. The fact that these systems exist mean that in fact Maori do receive priveliges relative to other New Zealanders - there is nothing "alleged" about it.222.153.175.58 22:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Are there any more reasons why the word "alleged" should be removed, or the section reworded? 222.152.243.221 04:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that you are missing the point when you counter allegations of unfair advantages with figures on wages and housing and health. These National Front guys are asserting that the maori are given benefits by the government, not that they are more qualified and thus recieve higher wages. On their webiste it says that they would like maori to become "full and equal beneficiaries of New Zealand National Front Government social and economic reforms opportunities will exist without need for any further condescending special privileges.", so from this we can assume, I think, that they are talking about the government incentives provided to those of maori descent.

So the situation is as if two men run a race, one is given a headstart. If the advantaged man comes second even with his headstart, then it is true he is worse off, however the fact remains that he has been given an advantage. But the advantage could not change the mans disposition to run fast. Of course in New Zealand the worry I think is that this advantage is leeching resources from other areas, and that these benefits reduce funding to more vital areas, but the general idea is there.

There is no question over whether maori recieve unfair benefits or not. On the University of Auckland admissions site, you can see several courses, i.e Law, have targeted entry for Maoris, meaning they have an easier entry: http://www.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/for/prospective/programmes/getting_in/bursary.cfm. Wallace001 03:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, this is exactly what I'm trying to point out - there is nothing "alleged" about Maori receiving extra benefits, it's factual, and the article needs to reflect this.222.153.172.246 00:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Except that a few instances of programs designed to counteract maori disadvantage hardly prove that said disadvantage does not exist. Drett 19:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe you're following what I'm saying. I acknowledge that Maori are disadvantaged, but in acknowledging this we also realise that Maori do in fact receive special priveliges because of this. As a result, there is nothing "alleged" about the priveliges they receive, and the word should be removed from the aforementioned section of the article.222.153.173.158 07:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• As an outsider to this issue, I need to ask if the term "privilege" is a politically loaded one in this context in New Zealand. Do both supporters and opponents of the programs in question use the term "privilege"? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, can somebody verify this? Personally I don't see the term as politically charged, and feel that in this case point #3 at http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=privilege sums up its use quite well: "a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions." Maori as individuals do receive special rights, so using the phrase "alleged priveliges" therefore is false. (Side note: I have just registered this account so will from now on stop making unregistered posts) King ging 23:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• (Welcome!) Perhaps the expression "special rights" would be more suitable, than "privileges"? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, do you agree that the word "alleged" should be removed or does it need to remain there?King ging 05:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This has taken over 2 weeks so far to sort out, shall I put a "The neutrality of this section is disputed" in the appropriate section or is that unwarranted on this occasion? King ging 21:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I don't think "alleged" is appropriate if the term "privilege" -- or, as I'd prefer, the term "special rights" -- is in itself non-controversial. Do the supporters of these rights for the Maoris use the expressions "special rights" or "privileges"? Don't bother with a neutrality tag; we'll work it out here just fine. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know both the terms "privelige" and "special rights" are acceptable, however I think we should wait to see what Drett thinks about the issue so we can get this sorted out properly. King ging 03:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been over a month since the issue was first raised, shall we continue to wait for Drett or begin putting changes into place? King ging 03:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I still feel it's inappropriate to removed the word 'alleged' as the NZNF were not protesting against the privileges King Ging is referring to. They were protesting against privileges which simply don't exist - they believe Maori live significantly easier lives than Pakeha in NZ and that Maori have an illicit control over the direction of the nation. Drett 20:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about what the party believes, it's about what the party was actually protesting against. If they were protesting against the special rights that Maori in actual fact do receive relative to other New Zealanders then the word alleged makes the section incorrect, and needs to be removed. King ging 06:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The party was protesting against alleged privileges - not actual privileges. Drett 20:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case the article needs to show this distinction between what they actually protested against and the priveliges that maori actually do receive. King ging 05:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)