Talk:New Zealand National Front

message: Bastique, can you say why you removed so much material?  A lot of it seems to be sourced to regular newspapers. Also, it clearly is a "far right" organization, so what do you see as the problem of calling it that? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is in accordance with an m:OTRS request.  Also they don't call themselves far right.  Nationalist seemed more appropriate--it's easy to derive Rightist from Nationalist, it seemed reasonable.  Most of the "sourced" information is not actually included in the newspapers, merely derived.  Someone had evidently created a great deal more information than actually existed regarding the organization.  You do realize, I have no love for organizations such as these. Bastiq▼e demandez 23:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, in that respect, it's easier for OTRS agents to remove all of the sections that include falsified information than it is for us to sit here and take the time to rewrite it.  It's all available in history.  I know that you can do a good job with unbiased information, Slim, please help to take the time to do so.  Bastiq▼e demandez 23:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Bastique. I'll take a look at it when I have more time. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Material removed

message: So, has this party been officially dissolved?  They've joined the Nationalist Alliance, and their website is dead.  They also don't seem to be making any noise about running candidates this year, which means they can be dumped in the "historic" bin. --IdiotSavant (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to believe it, I'd just like to see a positive assertion from a reliable source. This little party has gone up and down before.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dissolved? 

message: It has been claimed that the NZNF was originally formed in 1968, giving as evidence a statement made by a later member, Kyle Chapman, in an interview. I can find nothing to substantiate that. The Front's own magazine Front line (issue no.1) does not make that claim, but gives a 1977 start. Plus the added contextual evidence for the 1977 origin is the formation of the sister organisations at that time. It is quite reasonable that Brian Thompson was an overseas supporter of the British National Front from 1968 and I have indicated that in my edit, but without evidence there seems no reason to state than an earlier organisation existed. --JHumphries (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Formation date

message: *However, the organisation had not updated its website for over a year, as of October 2010. There has been no media coverage or publicity related to the organisation since December 2009, according to the Index New Zealand print media reference website controlled by the National Library of New Zealand http://innz.natlib.govt.nz/Colin McCrone: "Right Muddle" Christchurch Press: 05.12.2009: C1-C3 Nor has NFNZ leader Kyle Chapman been cited since that time.
What is the purpose of this paragraph? I can't access either source. An assertion based on not finding a mention in a database seems like a violation of WP:NOR. What does McCrone say? Is this really noteworthy? I mean, Wikipedia must have articles on thousands of groups but I've never seen one that has information like this. Unless there's a good reasons for keeping this, I'd be inclined to delete it.   Will Beback  talk   10:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the innz and the website bit appear to be original research to me. Even it wasn't INNZ is not comprehensive enough to make such judgements from anyway.  The scope of INNZ is journal like articles and does not really cover News as such.  Plus the website appears to have been updated on 12th Sept 2011 which contradicts what is written above. In the article this has been edited but sort of does not mean the same thing anymore.  I think I will be bold and remove it all. Andrewgprout (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.   Will Beback  talk   01:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent inactivity

message: A newly registered editor, NZ Socilast, appears to be a member of the organisation this article relates to. They recently edited the infobox in the article to remove information on ideology entirely, saying "Although commonly cited as Neo-Nazi or Racist, we don't stand by these claims".
I've not reverted the edit (though that may be appropriate) but I have marked the article has having been edited by someone with WP:COI and I've left a message on their talk page.HenryCrun15 (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editor with conflict of interest 

message: Given the labelling epidemic amongst the left in the West. Is it true that the National Front are NNF as described by Susan Devoy? Why are people concerned about failed ideologies? 
Ans = identity politics practiced against a background of immigration policies which aim to produce an ethnicless society. In such a society the former majority lose their status as the group that defines the national identity? Which leads us to questions of how governments deal with such groups who speak out against the official narrative?Yonk (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: "Neo Nazi Facsists"?

message: How are the leaders "federal" (New Zealand isn't a federation). --HuttValley (talk) 08:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federal leaders? 

message: They ran as a political party and use the template for a political party and are listed in the Wikipedia project conservatism NZ. Do you have any reason to believe they aren't a political party backed up by credible sources? 
Defined here on Wikipedia as 
"A political party is an organized group of people who have the same ideology, or who otherwise have the same political positions, and who field candidates for elections, in an attempt to get them elected and thereby implement the party's agenda."
I added the activist group part as they are not entirely seen as just a political party IMO and probably yours too — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganBlade (talk • contribs) 
:While National Front NZ has fielded candidates in elections in the past, it has not done so for over a decade. I think it would be incorrect to say it is a political party, but you could argue it was one. HenryCrun15 (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: LoganBlade: I have restored the status quo ante. Please do not restore your edits until you have a consensus to do so from the editors on this page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to me that it is very questionable that the National Front is a political party - particularly in MMP New zealand where parties have an official status and an essential part in the political system.   needs to come up with some reliable references that say the organisation is generally considered a political party before it can be included in the way they seem to want. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: While parties can register in New Zealand, the Electoral Commission explicitly says that "parties can be registered or unregistered". Therefore being unregistered does not have bearing on whether an organisation is a political party. HenryCrun15 (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The typical language used in such cases is "X is an unregistered political party in New Zealand". As for the merits, the first question I ask when deciding if something is a "real" party is "does it run candidates"? Chapman ran as an explicitly National Front candidate in local body elections, so that settles it IMHO. Of course, that doesn't mean you can't also say it is a white nationalist, racist party. I wouldn't call it "inactive" as the organisation clearly still exists and is active. But the lead could note that it has not engage din electoral activites for some time, and the section on 'as a politicla party" could be renamed "Electoral activities" and note that Chapman is apparently the only candidate the party has ever run and that it has never sought registration or broadcasting funding, or any of the other electoral activities that NZ political parties typically engage in.--IdiotSavant (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree here. I think that the  electoral commission is more reliable when discussing what is or is not a political party than . If Andrew can produce any governmental material stating or suggesting that the National Front is not a political party I'm all ears. I propose "The New Zealand National Front is a White Nationalist group and an inactive political party in New Zealand." Thanks, (talk) 07:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

text: I used the words "organisation is generally considered a political party" - it simply would be easier if they were (or perhaps was) registered.  That is what a reference needs to confirm that they are generally considered a political party, and it is confirmation that is required. WP:BURDEN makes that clear it is the responsibility of the person who wants to make a change to justify it properly. Andrewgprout (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

text: It has never been registered. But unregistered parties used to be able to register logos, and the fact the National Front did is proof in and of itself that it is a political party. For consistency with other parties in NZ, I propose the wording "The New Zealand National Front is an unregistered political party in New Zealand." Material on its political position can either be inserted ("The New Zealand National Front is an registered White Nationalist political party...") or appended ("The party promotes racism and white nationalism"). Both formats are used in other party articles, depending on relative importance and what scans better.--IdiotSavant (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are they a political party.