Talk:New Guard

ALOR claim
I've removed an unsourced and nonsensical claim about the ALOR being significant in conservative politics. When mentions of the ALOR are made regarding politicians its almost always an accusation (Ie Newspaper articles accusing liberal party members of association with the ALOR). One is not 'significant', if even conservatives use your name as an abuse term. 58.7.0.146 08:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned references in New Guard
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of New Guard's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "adb": From Tom Walsh (trade unionist):  From George Hodges Knox:  From Reginald Weaver:  From Alexander Mair:  From History of Sydney:  From Joseph Cahill:  From Bank of New South Wales:  From Leslie Morshead: </li> <li>From Centre Party (New South Wales): Keith Amos, "Campbell, Eric (1893–1970)", Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. Published in hardcopy 1979, accessed online 13 June 2014.</li> <li>From Eric Harrison: </li> <li>From Philip Game: </li> <li>From Robert Menzies: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Fascist Legion - Inner or Splinter?
I invite Bacondrum to explain how it is that he/she insists upon the publication of an image (1) whose caption is not supported by the article content, indeed flatly contradicts that content and (2) one that features a splintered faction denounced by the subject organisation's leader and the publication of which has a tendency to sensationalise the article and mislead readers. sirlanz 04:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (1) Image and caption are part of an article published by a NSW Museum, a rock solid source. Do you think these organisations get their captioning and photography wrong? Do you claim NSW Museums are not reliable sources? Do you have any evidence of this? You've no reason to doubt the accuracy of the captions otherwise. I've also seen this image in a number of books with the subject described as a New Guard inner circle member. (2) I've also heard the Fascist Legion described as part of the inner circle, never as a splinter group...I have now added a number of citations to back this claim. To call the New Guard a paramilitary group is 100% accurate, I've never read of them described as anything else. Hyperbole? Absolutely not, not by any measure. Read the citations. Can you show me one that claims that Campbell denounced the fascist league? I've recently provided a pile to back the assertion that they were in-fact an inner circle. You've been making lots of improvements, I agree the page is a mess and lacking citations, I just think you've deleted a couple of things that are accurate and merely need citation...this doesn't have to be so uncivil. Bacondrum (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Go read it
Our role as editors is to provide factual information in articles and to provide reference source information so that readers can check veracity of what we paraphrase. It is no answer to suggest that a conflicting editor should go away and read what is not seen in the article itself in answer to deletion by that editor of broad editorial comment and/or conclusions. This article is seriously flawed in claiming paramilitarism and violence but failing to provide any account of such acts. If sources exist detailing such acts, it is absolutely essential that the acts be described here if the paramilitary and/or violence claims are to be sustained. The claims are central to the suggested nature of the organisation and must be established explicitly. sirlanz 04:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's important to read source material before dismissing it. I agree the article is seriously flawed. But paramilitarism is at the centre of every book and/or article I've ever read on the subject, it's what the group is known for, that and an Irish fascist on horseback in full military gear slashing the ribbon at the opening of the Sydney Harbor Bridge...Anyway, I went and found a heap of citations to back that assertion...I have a number of others in books, but I thought i'd keep it web based so you can read them yourself. Again, you've improved the article, it's nothing personal. Also, I did not author this page, I'm not defending my preferred version, I'm just interested in the subject. Bacondrum (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You're dealing with the deficiencies, which is what the encyclopaedia needs.  sirlanz 02:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What has now happened is that the editing has gone completely overboard in the other direction. Editors are encouraged to read the WP:OVERCITE policy and to be selective.  Make a choice as to the best source (or two at most, usually) and strip out all the others.  At the same time, ensure that if a multipage work is cited, that the page number is provided.  Otherwise, the citation may be removed for lack of verifiability. sirlanz 07:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a collective effort, feel free to cut the citations down if you feel that they are excessive. Bacondrum (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Jim Saleam's PhD
A discussion has been started at the RSN about Saleam's PhD. Please do not reinstate claims related to this source until it has been reviewed by other editors. The author is a fraud, a holocaust denier and was convicted for his involvement in an attempted murder. Bacondrum (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Claims made challenging Saleam’s inclusion in the article constitute several criticisms.

Argument against credibility
Firstly, it is asserted that Saleam is indeed not an expert, nor a notable, respected or credible academic. To the contrary, Saleam’s dissertation was cited in:
 * Andrew Moore’s Writing about the Extreme Right in Australia;
 * Troy Whitford’s Combating Political Police: An Overview of National Action’s Counterintelligence Program 1982–1990;
 * Narrelle Morris’ Japan-Bashing: Anti-Japanism since the 1980s;
 * Matthew Cunningham’s Australian Fascism? A Revisionist Analysis of the Ideology of the New Guard;

- among others.

Andrew Moore is a historian who has taught at the University of Sydney, the University of New South Wales, the University of Lincoln and the University of Western Sydney. He is a leading expert on the New Guard, which is the topic of the article from which this dispute originated. Troy Whitford is the Coordinator of the Masters in Intelligence Analysis program at Charles Stuart University, having had studied previously at the Australian Security Academy and was employed as a Private and Commercial Inquiry Agent by the NSW Police Force. Narrelle Morris is a senior lecturer at Curtin Law School, specialising in Australian-Japanese affairs particularly in the development of anti-Japanese sentiment post-World War II. She has published numerous materials on the topic and has won several academic awards. Matthew Cunningham is a Doctor of Philosophy from the Victoria University of Wellington. Currently employed by the New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, he has previously published work relating to the topic, including the afore-referenced.

This same disagreement was raised here, where user ElKevbo raised the point that if the dissertation was produced under legitimate university supervision and was subject to normal review policies, it is indeed valid for scholarly use. His concern about WP:UNDUE is valid, however Saleam is not only repeatedly cited by other academics, but within this article is also placed alongside historians Keith Amos, Andrew Moore and Robert Darlington, where he serves to argue against their understanding of the New Guard as a fascist movement. This balances the dispute regarding this historical issue.


 * Wow, he was referenced four times since the PHD was published 18 years ago, and his extensive career in academia...Oh hang on, he's been largely unemployed for the last 18 years, and never worked in academia. So use Andrew Moore, Troy Whitford, Narrelle Morris or Matthew Cunningham as a source. The use of Saleam's PHD is undue, end of story. He is on the fringe, a holocaust denier a violent thug and a convicted fraudster. His PHD is not noteworthy, completely undue and I believe it is vulgar in the extreme to give air to the views of a violent racist neo-Nazi - surely there is a basic standard of decency that must be applied here. WP:NONAZIS Bacondrum (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Argument against character
Secondly, other arguments given against Saleam’s inclusion include his purported Neo-Nazism (a vague phrase), alongside Holocaust denial, as well as his prior convictions for fraud and a shotgun attack on an ANC representative. This characterisation of Saleam as not credible due to his unsavoury politics or past crimes (which occurred nearly/over 30 years ago) I believe constitute an attempt to poison the well. Any political bias or violent influence (how?) onto his work would have surely been filtered out by the peer review process at the University of Sydney. Furthermore, his work on Holocaust denial, which I am not privy to, could be deeply flawed but one’s deficiency in one field does not guarantee deficiency in all fields. Again, expect the peer review process to rectify any shortcomings in his methodology.

I believe this constitutes a sound argument for the inclusion of Saleam’s dissertation as a valid reference on this article. I invite other editors to join the discussion and discuss any shortcomings with either one of our arguments. AwakenedWorld (talk) 08:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Poison the well? Really? So he wasn't a member of the Nazi Party? He wasn't convicted of fraud? Never convicted for organising an attempted murder? Never denied the holocaust? I think you'll find the man poisoned his own well and that all these claims about his character and actions are 100% verifiable facts. Bacondrum (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In this edit, AwakenedWorld refers to Saleam as simply an "activist". That's a pretty dishonest descriptor for someone who's in reality a violent white supremacist. Far from "poisoning the well", that's basically like taking a well full of weapons-grade radioactive waste and presenting it as a source of potable water. This is meant to be a serious encyclopedia&mdash;find better sources, and do better in terms of being honest with readers and with fellow editors. MastCell Talk 18:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * indeed, Saleam is a violent recidivist criminal and neo Nazi, calling him an activist is blatant obfuscation of the true nature of the subject who is notable only for violent racism and criminal convictions. If he's an activist I'm Santa Claus Bacondrum (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Absent any recognition of Saleam's single academic contribution, it is not sufficient to support or warrant any exposure here. Caution in using mere PhD theses as sources is a matter of WP policy in any event.  sirlanz 09:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Ideology
Why have we been we allowing elaborate self-promotion in this article, by quoting the New Guard's program at length? According to the section "Ideology", the New Guard was all about loyalty to the throne, uniting all loyal citizens, irrespective of creed, party, social or financial position, maintaining the full liberty of the individual, etc, etc. The founder Eric Campbell is quoted (from a radio broadcast!) speaking of the organisation's crusade for moral regeneration. What is all this? We don't do that for any political organisations, or indeed any organisations, because then they would all be made to look lovely. Compare the arguments in Avoid mission statements. I've removed the section. I considered keeping its last paragraph, which stated there "has been academic disagreement over whether the New Guard could be considered a fascist organisation", but in the end I didn't, because the particulars — the scholars cited — simply don't bear it out. Oh wait, they do, if the paragraph about Saleam's PhD is added, see the section above. It's longer than the account of all the other scholars put together, so it looks like "balance" in that sense. Bah. WP:NONAZIS. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC).