Talk:New Zealand National Front

"Neo Nazi Facsists"?

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[1]? 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)

Material removed

Bastique, can you say why you removed so much material? [2] 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)

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)

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)

Thanks, Bastique. I'll take a look at it when I have more time. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Dissolved?

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)

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)

Formation date

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[3]. 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)

I have now found a source which comments on late 60's activity. --JHumphries (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent inactivity

• 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 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)

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)

Thanks.   Will Beback  talk  01:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Editor with conflict of interest

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)

Federal leaders?

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