Talk:White supremacist New Zealanders provoked by Sydney riots

Link to their website

I want to cite where the claims about their religion come from hence the link to that page on their website, but I do not wish to promote their site. This placed me at odds with what to do, but I feel for accuracy the link must be there. If someone feels it should be removed then I understand totally. Cartman02au 00:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's entirely appropriate to link to the website, although possibly the link should be placed in the "sources" section rather than in the article, if it is the source of information about the organisation. Remember the principle of neutral point of view applies to all points of view, even the ones that we find offensive or dangerous. It isn't up to us to decide right from wrong, we just report. - Borofkin 01:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand that and that is why I made the link. I thought a link in the article was more appropriate because it was referencing statements made by the organisation on their website (unrelated to the actual news story). The reason it was provided was to provide information about the organisation - Cartman02au 01:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Background information on the organisation is definitely related to the news story. If you have put information into the article that came from the organisations website, then the organisations website is a source, the same as any other source. - Borofkin 02:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I would not add a link unless there was a release that you used as a source. If they have a Wikipedia entry, it could be linked - but just a link to their website is sketchy. Mentioning their name should be enough. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If we don't link to the website as a source, then we can't include the sentence These "crusaders" believe in the CREATIVITY religion - created for the "Survival, Expansion, and Advancement of the White Race". The website is the source for this sentence. - Borofkin 04:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Article title

The title of the article suggests that the white supremacism started in Australia (with the race riots). However the article seems to state that the group in question has been around for longer than the Sydney race riots. Further, many of the rioters in Sydney are not and were not white supremacists.

Wikinews should not be sensationalist, perhaps a title change is in order? --Croperz 05:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

A fair point - White supremacism obviously existed in New Zealand before the recent events in Australia. I suppose the article title reflects this quote from the posters found in New Zealand: "If Sydney can do it so can we... let's take back our land". Can you suggest an alternative title? - Borofkin 05:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps "White supremacist New Zealanders provoked by Sydney riots"? --Croperz 07:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

That title sounds good to me and I have changed the article's title to that - Cartman02au 20:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Define Irony

Irony == The offspring of foreign immigrants starting a "Let's take back our land" campaign in response to foreign immigration. Makes you proud, it does. --80.222.69.104 14:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, the same irony exists in Australia. I can't wait for an Aboriginal group to issue a press release declaring that the Anglo-Saxon, Chinese, Italian, Greek, Macedonian, Vietnamese, and Lebanese immigrants have failed to assimilate to the local way of life, and if they don't like Koori rules they should go back to where they came from. - Borofkin 08:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)