Talk:Fight Dem Back

Original Research
This page has included original research that was uncited, and unverifable. This information has been deleted in accordance with Wikipedia policy regarding original research. In relation to sources and references, suitable sources and references were not listed. See what constitutes a reputable source:

It is patently clear that the FDB website is not a reputible source for information, (other than trivia) therefore it should not be used as a source of important information, like FDB's campaigns, criticism etc. Trivial information like its leadership and location are acceptable. Maximus Meridius 02:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree about the suitability of the subject's website as a source for information about itself. I beleive it is proper to use it as a primay source. -Will Beback 04:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is fine to use the subject's website as a source of trivial information, but in terms of topics such as campaigns, where there is a self-serving bias to embellish one's own accomplishments, it is self-defeating. For example, an academic studying the Iraq war would not use the information projected by the Iraqi Information Minister as it was self-serving and fallacious. In terms of assesing FDB's campaigns, its success and its criticism, it is suitable to refer only two reputable secondary sources-as I have done. FDB and the Australia First Party cannot and must not be considered reputable. Maximus Meridius 04:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Bold text

Self-promotion

 * This article is no doubt a shameless self-promotion. It has obviously been written by a member and demonstrates a shameless POV. Maximus Meridius 01:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And you're a wikivandal. Hands off.Schmoul Aschkenazi 06:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * One more revert buys you a 3RR ban, bud. Schmoul Aschkenazi 10:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * MM, my advice apparently wasn't good enough for you. Thou shalt not revert-war nor sockpuppet! Enjoy your brief holiday. Schmoul Aschkenazi 23:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I started this article. I am a left-winger, but not a member of FightDemBack. --Apeloverage 08:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Foundation
It is a bit inaccurate to suggest the group was started by Darp alone. FDB came about as a result of the joint efforts of anti-racist across Australia and New Zealand. From Aus, it was Mat Henderson-Hau, Cam Sexenheimer (publicly - along with several people who are known only by psuedonymns like Weezil and Duck Monster). In New Zealand, noted community activist Asher Goldman was involved along with many old school NZ punks. (please sign your comments)

You're right. Quite a number of disconnected subsystems came together to form FDB and it remains rather ad-hoc. The seed idea was however, for the most part, formed within the group you describe. Schmoul Aschkenazi 14:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC) (weezil)

FDB Politics and free speech
Hate speech is never free speech. FDB oppose the abuse of free speech to cause injury or defamation on the basis of religion, skin colour, etc. Not even in the hallowed US Constitution's 1st Amendment is anyone granted the right to call people 'niggers.' Rights in any society have concordant responsibilities and limitations. Rights are necessarily limited so that the greatest number may have the greatest liberty without infringing the rights of others. Schmoul Aschkenazi 14:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC) (weezil)

He who fights monsters... --Apeloverage 09:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Small Update
Just added a few more details to the article, and corrected a couple of things (Robert Trigan was also heavily involved in the foundation of FDB along with me). --Asher 15:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The article could benefit from more detail about the actual history of the founding of the group, from the PYL anti-immigration sticker assault on Darps's home stomp of Eastwood in 2004 and forward. Schmoul Aschkenazi 22:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Spelling
FightDemBack activists are located mainly in Australia and New Zealand. 'JD_UK' changed the spelling of 'focussed' to 'focused.' The former is the correct spelling in Aus and NZ. Chiefly British spelling conventions should reasonably be expected in an encyclopaedic entry about this group. (weezil) Schmoul Aschkenazi 23:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Format of name
The name is written in the article as both Fight Dem Back and FightDemBack. Which would be best? Also, the logo includes an exclamation mark at the end. Is this an official part of the name? Drett 00:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite technically, the correct name of the group is "FightDemBack!" inclusive of the exclamation point and with no spaces. Schmoul Aschkenazi 13:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits by Mero99
Edits need to be cited with reliable sources - a picture on a blog with the charming filename of 'fucker' is not a good source. Please try to remain NPOV also - "pulling the strings?" Drett 00:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A blurry picture of the back of somebody's head in which nobody is identifiable at that! Drett 00:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits by Delos

 * Delos, please refrain from adding original "research" to this article. Dishonest edit summaries are not your friend, either. Drett 07:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You will find I actually haven't added anything if you actually cared to look. I spent this afternoon wikifying it so that it's intelligible. I'm reversing your changes again, if you reverse them I will be talking to the mods about this. -- Delos
 * Delos, I can see the diffs, and you are adding completely original "research" while wikifying a couple of words. I am going to reverse your changes, in line with Wikipedia guidelines re: Original Research, and I invite you to take the issue up with whomever you choose. Drett 23:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems probable that Delos is the same person as 'Lord Delos', who is a white supremacist that FDB accuses of running a Denial of Service attack on their site.  --Apeloverage 08:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct Apeloverage, I am the one FDB have accused of running a Denial of Service attack, which implies by definition alone that I was not found guilty of it or else I would not be "accused", now would I? So much for innocent until found guilty, eh? It was a long time ago, and no amount of investigation has found me to be guilty of this - in fact, the New Zealand Criminal Investigations Bureau (NZ CIB) wrote in the investigation that I had taken no part in this. I will state here for the record that I had no part in it and that FDB tried to smear my good name - once again. As to your claim that I am a "white supremacist", you will find that the label "white supremacist" is a P.O.V. from FDB themselves, not from myself. Some of my beliefs are congruent to that of a separatist, but not a supremacist in any way. I have no desire to subjugate anyone and any claim that I do is completely and utterly false. My legal right to being a separatist is well documented and is not illegal in any way. Please refer to Article Five of the Fourteen Points, the 1945 Potsdam Conference, and finally the U.N. International bill of rights under the section of the Right to Self-Determination of ethnic peoples if you wish to know more. --Delos 04:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * They also seem to accuse you of talking about killing one of their members. I'm looking in the International bill of rights, but I can't find the "pegging in the desert/hang him high" clause. Can you help? Drett 08:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, I cannot help you with that one. As I said, they can accuse me of anything they like. The irony is that threats that are not given to the target person, whether actually meant or in jest, are not illegal - but defamation is. As someone who has always advocated non-violence to solve problems and has no criminal record, I'm sure you are smart enough to understand it was said in the heat of the moment based on something that Mathew Henderson had said in the past about the organisation I belonged to at the time - in saying that, I wasn't the only person who made disparaging comments of Mathew Henderson at the time, I remember a comment about how nice it would be to see him thrown down a mine shaft for his actions at the time, funny how I was the only one targetted, isn't it? Having my organisations good name tarnished by straight out lies via accusations that were accepted as being true by gullible people who go to the FDB website was something that really got to me and fellow members at the time, and I do regret making those comments, and I'm sure they do too. Just so you know, I left a cease-and-desist letter warning him about his breach of the law on his forum after my request for his address came back that he is "living in hiding" / unlisted. He and the others who hang out in the FDB forum can confirm my first post - if they have the guts to be honest. --Delos 00:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, as long as it wasn't just you, that's alright. You cannot sue someone in Australia if what they are saying is true, Delos.  I asked them about your first post, and they sent me this link: http://fightdemback.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=468  It looks like they told you to delete his home address from your forum, and then you told them that if they came to your forum again you would call the cops?  I thought you said you sent that cease and desist after you requested his address... but if you already had it on your forum, why did you need to request it? Something doesn't quite add up in your story - I'm beginning to understand why these guys have a button about you called, "Don't Lie, Lord Delos". Drett 00:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I asked for it because of a past incident where Mathew Henderson-Hau made comments about ANN, a member supplied his address, Mathew Henderson-Hau complained about it being posted there (i.e. he spammed us, if you read the page), and I told him not to come to our forum anymore (cease-and-desist); what part of that chronological order can you not understand? You seem to be mighty eager to pass judgement for someone who just surfs their website Drett. Now, it wasn't even his personal details, he admitted that before making the request to have "his personal details" removed. While that is beside the point, he asked for it to be removed and it was done so, but as stated on our website on the bottom over every page: A.N.N. DOES NOT RESTRICT THE CONTENTS POSTED BY INDIVIDUAL USERS, and I had to ask the other senior members first before I deleted a whole topic - Free Speech means Free Speech Brett, and we had decided any posts that would be deleted would be discussed first. Go to the link he provided for where his details are to see it is long gone. So Drett, since you like hearing about accusations of lying, here are some wild accusations on just that page alone made my Mathew Henderson-Hau: "This site is hosted in another Commonwealth country (Candada)", WRONG, it never has been. "I feel that Trev deserves his right to free speech", errr... WRONG AGAIN, he pushed to get him sacked because he posted on a free speech forum. "[Trev is] also the main graphic design guy for Redwatch Dowunder"... wrong again, Trev has never had anything to do with Red Watch other than make a crappy cut and paste picture of a roach that anyone could have done in MS Paint. "You operate from a platform that would see every non-white person in your country hung from trees or shot on sight", when have I ever said that? Come on, evidence please! "You seek the denial of the right to free speech for non-whites", when did I ever say they weren't allowed free speech? "you seek to deny their right to live on the basis of their ethnicity", again, evidence? I have never said this - in fact I said the exact opposite, I said that they have the right to a homeland of their own, free from oppression of people whom are not like themselves culturally, racially, and ethnically (i.e. Europeans). So who is the real liar Drett? I think Darp loves to pigeonhole me as some evil neo-nazi skinhead. Is everyone who doesn't nod and agree with him the "enimy"? --Delos 13:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ooooookay... O_o Drett 04:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The article about criticisms
Stop trying to delete the article about the criticisms of Fight Dem Back. --124.177.64.228 (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it's an encyclopedia that requires citations of reliable third-party sources for its claims, especially about living people. Andjam (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

None of this will stop me from bringing down Fight Dem Back and all the other anarchist/neo-trotskyist fronts. I will keep on publishing the truth about you anarchists on lots of web sites not just wikipedia. The Stalinist League will always win in the end. We have won every fight that we have been in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.69.28 (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

*giggle* Schmoul Aschkenazi (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

FDB inactive/disbanded
It seems that Fight Dem Back is inactive and/or disbanded. Is there any sources that can confirm this? The website no longer exists, all that remains is a blog in which the last entry is 2006. I think the article should include something on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckyboi (talk • contribs) 01:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The group are still around but work differently. With the advent of social media, the FDB website & discussion forum were no longer necessary. It was also found that it was unnecessary and in fact counterproductive to have a recognisable public presence. FDB always functioned as a clearinghouse for information about far-right actors who tried to maintain a foothold in 'normie' society and mainstream politics. Information is collected and distributed as required to interfere as much as possible with extreme-right activities. Schmoul Ashkenazi (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)