Talk:Fight Dem Back

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Original Research

message: * 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)
replies: text: * And you're a wikivandal. Hands off.Schmoul Aschkenazi 06:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * One more revert buys you a 3RR ban, bud. Schmoul Aschkenazi 10:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * 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)
thread_title: Self-promotion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Foundation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  FDB Politics and free speech 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Small Update 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Format of name 

message: 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)
replies: text: A blurry picture of the back of somebody's head in which nobody is identifiable at that! Drett 00:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by Mero99 

message: Stop trying to delete the article about the criticisms of Fight Dem Back. --124.177.64.228 (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The article about criticisms 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: 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.http://fightdemback.blogspot.co.nz/ I think the article should include something on this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckyboi (talk • contribs) 01:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  FDB inactive/disbanded