Talk:Social Credit Party (New Zealand)

liberal party?
As far as I can see the New Zealand Democratic Party takes a position in the New Zealand political spectrum similar to progressive liberal parties elsewhere. Therefore I included it in the category Liberal parties. I added a simple explanation in the introduction. Gangulf 10:13, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

After reading the policies and beliefs of the 'Democrats for Social Credit' and the 'Direct Democracy' parties, I would very much like to see the your party(NZ Democratic Party)join with the other two parties sharing the same principles and beliefs.Iron out your slight variations of policy and find a common ground in which to grow and give confidence to the people of New Zealand so that they may easier believe that there is a strong enough party with strong enough policies to lead us out of the debt system we are living with.I ,for one, are going to vote for the 'Direct Democracy party' this year.My very first vote went to Social Credit back in the 1950's--60's,and it was only when the party begun to fragment itself with other parties continually,that I gave up and voted for the 'greens party'instead.To get the required numbers and have any chance of making further inroads to get the message across,it needs 'one strong party'to lead the way,instead of taking away much needed votes from one another.These are desperate times--humble yourselves and band together for the common goal of political salvation for all NZ'ers. Sincerely,Jenny Lockett,Te Puke,BOP.

Jenny, this is not a website for the NZ Democratic Party. This is an encyclopedia article about that party. You should address your comemtns to the party itself. There is a link to the party's website at the end of the article. Ground Zero | t 22:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NewZealandSocialCreditPartyLogo.png
Image:NewZealandSocialCreditPartyLogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Do the Democrats and Social Credit really need seperate pages? They are after all the same party just with a name change? This is especially true now that the Democrats have gone back to promoting themselves with the slogan "Democrats for Social Credit". Things like a list of MP's and Leaders equally apply to both parties. Mattlore 01:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Proposing a merge now, three years later :) Mattlore (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree: They may be the same party, but each article is long enough on its own. Combining the two articles would make a long and unwieldy article that would then have to be broken down into more manageable pieces. The name change is a reasonable breaking point to keep the articles short. Ground Zero | t 13:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem I have is alot of the material overlaps and is sometimes contradictory. For instance the Democratic Party article says that it was founded in 1953, yet doesn't talk about any pre 1985 history. It does however list pre 1985 office holders and election results. The Social Credit article lists the party as "Dissolved 1985, renamed New Zealand Democratic Party" which I think is wrong, the party never dissolved - merely renamed itself. There was no merger or anything like this, it has been the same party the whole way through and therefore all the information should be in one article. If it gets too long then it should be split into articles like History of the New Zealand Democratic Party or something like that. Mattlore (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The problems of overlapping and contradictory material should be addressed - I am not knowledgeable enough about the subject matter to do this. But these issues have nothing to do with merging the articles and then dividing them up again, which does not seem to me to be worthwhile. The closest analogue I can think of is the Conservative Party of Canada (historical), which changed its name in the early 1940s to the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. This was the same party under a new name, but the two articles exist and are of sufficient length that merging them would not be a good idea. Ground Zero | t 01:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagree keep seperate (although there will be some overlap 1985-86) Hugo999 (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree Keep seperate as the 'social credit' article deals with the past rather than the actual going concern of the 'Democrats for...', their was/is a shift between the two, warranting that they be kept seperate? Text mdnp (talk) 02:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree While Democratic Party may have been the inheritor of the Social Credit Party it was substantially different - and the name change was to differentiate themselves from the historic party. We have articles for Liberal Party and United Party, and even if United MPs are categorised as Liberal MPs, the history, renaming and reformation of Liberal United assures them of a separate article. Fan |  talk  06:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Democrats v Social Credit
it might be best to focus this article on the period after Social Credit renamed itslef, and push earliermaterial (e.g. election results, party presidents etc) into the article on the Social Credit party. --IdiotSavant (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, either merge the two pages together or make the two cover clear, distinct, periods. eg SCred->1985, 1985->Dems. Although it would be even better if Social Credit could cover right upto Alliance then this page was only post split but I don't really see how thats justifiable. Mattlore (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-neutral editing
I have moved this comment from my talk page so that it can be reviewed by all interested in this article, and adding paragraph numbering to facilitate discussion:
 * Hi GroundZero: #Not sure how to use this feature properly, however you requested a "talk".
 * I would like to discuss which edits specifically you suggest are "Non-neutral" some of the information on the original New Zealand Democratic Party for Social Credit page that you have reverted back to are not accurate and misrepresent the values and objectives of the political party.
 * There is no ambiguity with a party called New Zealand Democrat Party and connitation with this other party portrays an apparent opposite association with an unrelated political movement and decade, which contracts from the partyconstitution and tenets see: "...Rules.pdf" at http://www.elections.org.nz/parties-candidates/registered-political-parties/register-political-parties
 * Secondly the nick name of the the party needs to be added to the search-ability to make an association with the dual reference in the logo ALSO KNOWN AS: "The Democrats for Social Credit".
 * Some of the philosophical socio-sophical "isms" are wrong, ALSO words like "small" and missing information about the party being one of the three long standing parties with more current life members than any other party by definition of the word, mean that they have the most experienced advisors' and MPs in the country.
 * please restore the edits and advise specifically where you have discrepancies with the content, I was present as a independent third party member of the public at their 50th anniversary dinner and I have a good understanding of the party principles and ideologies. I have made contact with the party leader and look forward to your opinion. the reason It appears I made lots of changes was because of minor punctuation errors. For now I have reverted the changes so we can find common ground where facts are concerned.
 * This party has been, mis understood, mis represented, and subverted by political commentators and the previous Wikipedia page did not accurately communicate the objectives of the collectivist socio-economic model that the party stand for. Which is based on production, cultural and social health, and crime reduction over job creation and GDP.

Anon 121.75.183.90 (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

My responses: User:121 - welcome to Wikipedia. And thank you for your enthusiasm in trying to improve this article. Please take some time to learn about how Wikipedia works so that you can contribute more effective and help build the encyclopaedia. I recommend that you register for an account to make it easier for you to watch articles that you are editing, and to communicate with other editors. It is not required, though.
 * 1) Disambiguation notes are provided to help readers navigate through articles. They do not portray an association. In fact, they clarify for the reader that there is a difference. Removing a disambiguation note makes it more difficult for the reader to get to the information they are looking for.
 * 2) I don't understand what you are getting at with this comment. Both versions of the article list the same four names of the party in the opening paragraph.
 * 3) Your personal connection with the party is not of consequence in Wikipedia. What matters are references to reliable sources. I recommend that you review the Wikipedia policy on verifiability.
 * 4) You seem to have very strong opinions about this, which is fine, but please understand Wikipedia articles strive to achieve a neutral point of view. You have rewritten sections seemingly to promote the party. For example:
 * You added, without providing any source, "The Democratic Party is also aware of the risks automation poses to nation of growing population that in trades high value imports and low-value primary exports." Are there risks posed by automation? Or will automation make NZ industry more competitive in the global market? There are people who will argue both points of view. And they are points of view, not facts.
 * You added: "What was once a commonly accepted model for improving a nations capital wealth has been associated with dangerous labels such as extremist and "radical" by commentators who support Laissez-faire capitalism and privatization." A statement like this needs a reference to a reliable source.
 * You added: "The party has a representative candidate for nearly every one of the 72 electorates including some of New Zealand's longest running life memberships and thus New Zeaklands most experienced political scientists and advisors." The phrase like "nearly every one" is not specific. Do you mean "every one" or something less? If you know the number, you should provide that. If you don't, then how can you say "nearly"? Also, please provide a source. Add "Citation needed" tags where you see text that someone else has written that you think should be cited. Don't add the tax to your only contributions and expect someone else to find it for you. If you do not have a citation, then hold off on making the edit until you can find one. "Some of NZ's longest running life memberships.... most experienced political scientists...." These are examples of language that looks like it is designed to promote the party. These are subjective statements, not objective ones, and you provided no sources. These are just then your opinions, and don't belong in an encyclopaedia article.
 * You deleted "small" because you said that "a belittling and defamatory description, that is not appropriate, as the party has a representative in every region some 120+ members and some of New Zealand's longest running life memberships and experienced political scientists". Compared to the Nats, Labour, NZ First, Greens, ACT.... the Dems are are small party. This is a pretty safe statement, and does not have pejorative connotation.

I encourage you to take more care in your editing -- you introduced a number of spelling and punctuation errors into the article that weren't there before, and so you diminished the quality of the article: I have restored the original version of the article while we discuss changes. I ask that you propose changes here first, and then we can make them when we agree. Sound good? Regards, Ground Zero | t 13:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "New Zeaklands most experienced"
 * "it's values align"
 * "such as a nations wealth"
 * "improving a nations capital wealth"
 * "aware of the risks automation poses to nation of growing population"

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Zealand Democratic Party for Social Credit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209051141/http://2008.electionresults.govt.nz/partystatus.html to http://2008.electionresults.govt.nz/partystatus.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I strongly contest the suggestion that a League of Rights organisation only existed in New Zealand because Social Credit was not anti-semitic. Anti-semitism is not the core belief of the LOR, and more importantly there were separate LOR organisations in every country in which Social Credit was established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Formal request has been received to merge the article New Zealand Democratic Party for Social Credit into Social Credit Party (New Zealand); dated: March 2019. Proposer's Rationale: These are two iterations of the same political party which have separate articles. Social Credit renamed themselves as the Democratic Party in 1985 but in 2018 reverted back to being the Social Credit Party. The period as the Democratic Party would be now best served as a separate section in the article for the Social Credit Party. Pinging proposer. Discuss here. Richard3120 (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I support merger. The party leader, Chris Leitch, attempted to merge the articles at the beginning of this year but I reverted it as a cut and paste move, and suggested he get help from the politics workgroup of Wikiproject New Zealand to do it properly. There's no need to leave a stub at New Zealand Democratic Party for Social Credit; it can become a redirect so long as suitable attribution for ocntributors is made.- gadfium 18:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Suppport Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment – In the some electorates (e.g. ) had candidates from both the Democrats and Social Credit. I don't know the history around this though. I don't think it would the same as back when around the turn of the 20th century Liberal and Conservatives occasionally fielded more than one candidate (I thought it was only Liberal until today when I looked at Bruce). Leaning support but curious as to that history as it could imply that technically the Democrats are a break-off from Social Credit.  J  947 &thinsp;(c) , at 04:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Social Credit Party at the 1990 elections has referred to were a splinter of the Democrats under Beetham who thought the Democrats had strayed too far from monetary reform policy. This breakaway party also contested the 1992 Tamaki by-election and 1998 Taranaki-King Country by-election as "Social Credit". This will probably need a separate article. Good examples of this are Social Democratic Party (UK, 1988) and Liberal Party (UK, 1989) which were likewise rump successor parties. 02:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ping didn't work for some reason. Yes, that explains it, recently I saw Beetham under that ticket at . Support but with a footnote explaining those elections (if nothing is in the article about it). If someone puts some solid work into this article then I may appreciate a split into two, or possibly a 'History' article in addition to the main article.  J 947 &thinsp;(c) , at 21:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Anti-semitism denial
I saw that this page have contained uncited text falsely claiming that the Social Credit party have no ties to anti-Semitism, when in fact it was one of the primary anti-Semitic NZ organisations of the 20th century. I've rewritten the entire section, with citations and links to other pages with similar information. 27.252.211.62 (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 09:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Kōrero pono, thanks for your edit. The way you've written the book reference makes it sound like Paul Spoonley wrote the whole book, when he only wrote the chapter you're citing and Leonard Bell and Diana Morrow are the book authors. Could you amend this citation? I would, but I will be honest - I'm not sure how to make that distinction in the citation fields. (For other editors, an excerpt from the relevant chapter appears here.)


 * I'd also ask about the sentence "The Social Credit movement in New Zealand has been associated with antisemitism since the 1930s." Do people think that this implies that the party/movement is still antisemitic? If so, that's not demonstrated by the citations and the sentence may need rewording. HenryCrun15 (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * These accusations of anti-semitism are not the same as actual anti-semitic behaviour or publications: accusations should be qualified as accusations, not purported as fact. And the accusations came from their political opponents, which is important context that risks introduction of bias via it's omission. The examples provided barely corroborate claims of anti-semitism, and rely on existing belief in Mr Douglas being anti-semitic (no new evidence is provided here) but are worthy of inclusion if they could be written in a more NPOV. There's actually no shortage of pundits accusing Social Credit of fascism, but substantiated claims of fascism are basically non-existent. Currently it reads like the party is anti-semitic and always has been, but I doubt that narrative bears much semblance of truth; I think the text in this section goes much, much too far in maligning a party which has overtly distanced itself from such behaviour. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Henry, I agree that my initial sentence perhaps overstates the matter, and that my citation was imperfect. I appreciate that you took the time to review my edits and to let me know. I got a little heated when I saw the previous article and made this account specifically to address the matter, so it's great that a more experience wikipedian could check up on my work. I'll have a go at restating the opening line to something more reasonable now, and will review the citations guide in the next few days. Kōrero pono (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I just made an edit to the anti-semitism section in the hope it will make clear both sides of the story regarding the accusations of anti-semitism. Mr Douglas' issue appears to be less with Jewish people, and more the behaviour of banking cartels, whom he identified as being largely staffed by Jewish persons - for whatever that's worth. Please don't mistake my edit for any kind downplaying of anti-semitism! WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)