Talk:Advance New Zealand

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 5 May 2020 by reviewer Bkissin (talk · contribs).

New Zealand: Politics Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Party metadata

This New Zealand article has some associated metadata templates to display political party colours and names in election candidate and results tables.

The table below shows the content of these metadata templates.

Advance New Zealand — political party metadata
Color		Shortname
	#1987D1	Advance NZ

New Zealand People(')s Party

Advance New Zealand has a component party which, according to the Electoral Commission is called the "New Zealand Peoples Party". It's unclear if this is the same party as covered in the article New Zealand People's Party. Are they connected? It's also unclear if the missing apostrophe is intentional. HenryCrun15 (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hey HenryCrun15 you have the wrong party, It's the New Zealand Public Party that is a component party of Advance.~~ NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 00:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my mistake, didn't realise both NZ Peoples and NZ Public were component. Retracted and will look more into it. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 00:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its the same party. Source, but unfortunately its a facebook video.--IdiotSavant (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it also looks like their old web page on the article isn't valid. Only have Facebook and its only contact for them too. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 00:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article has negative POV.

This is especially the case for the "background" section. It doesn't explain what the falling out between the Ross and the leader of the NP was about. No details on the accusations of corruption. Later, it says charges have been bought against 4 people. We don't know who or why, but the article tells us that no National Party MPs were targeted and that Ross is actually the one at fault. The only thing I understand 100% from this section is that the author wants us to come out with a negative opinion of Ross, the rest is unclear.

Also "conspiracism" is not an ideology. Unless Ross self-describes as a conspiracy theorist, please remove this unsourced POV. Mottezen (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you just come and tag pages and move on, that is real helpful. If you don't like something, then why don't you look into fixing the information yourself? NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 22:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't know anything about the subject, and I'm adding the tag because this article was not helpful. Mottezen (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Political Bias

Straight off the bat, this article alleges that Advance NZ main policies represent the political fringe. This is unsubstantiated opinion. On visiting their policy page I could not see anything I considered "fringe".

Then the article alleges that New Zealand Public Party, would be a "conspiracy theory party that spread misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic". This too is highly biased opinion without any substance. Most of what they have said about covid-19 has since been confirmed as scientific fact. There was however a lot uncertainty because expert opinions were and are still divided on many aspects of this "pandemic". Misinformation was shown to have come from official sources like the World Health Organisation, yet you make it sound like NZPP was malevolently spreading lies.

I feel this article was written with a political agenda and a negative bias against Advance NZ I request that personal political opinions be removed and the allegations either substantiated, or retracted. Perduta (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article reflects what reliable sources say about the party. If you don't like it, take it up with their editorial boards.--Pokelova (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability and objectivity of the unidentified sources has not been established and so once again, I object to this platform being abused to promote political agenda.Perduta (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe as in anti-vax [1] and forced vaccinations [2] and refusing to take down video with content they weren't allow to use. [3] Then the NZPP speading misinformation about Covid [4] and are against 5G technology and GMO because it will be used for control [5], worried about fluoridation and electromagnets.[6] Believes there is a UN 2030 policy to take over the world and create a One World government. [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by NZFC (talk • contribs)

I agree they are fringe but my opinion does not matter. You need to get a reliable source specifically saying "Advance New Zealand is fringe" otherwise this is firmly WP:OR and will need to be removed. 49.224.242.18 (talk) 11:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are mainstream news organisations and they are all in agreement. Unless you're alleging some grand media conspiracy, there is nothing more to be said.--Pokelova (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of evidence that vaccines have caused immense harm and little evidence that they work against covid. The political point is that it's the individual's right to choose. Not the government's right to impose. This is fundamental democracy not a "fringe issue". Similar arguments can be made against GMO and 5G: Their safety is highly questionable and all Advance advocates for is independent assessment. This is not "fringe". It's sensible precautionary principle before exposing the general public.

As for your main stream media, they received $56 million handout recently from the current Labour government. Their objectivity is consequently compromised. They cannot be considered "reliable sources" and have no authority to decide who is misleading when there are plenty of qualified experts that back the science that underpins Advance policies.

The UN agendas are published on the UN web site. They are there for everyone to read, but we did not vote for it's introduction. There is also information on the planned "great Reset" from the World Economic Forum. It all confirms this is not "conspiracy theory", but proves it to be undeniable conspiracy fact

I repeat my request that this site should not be abused to promote biased subjective opinions. An other thing worth saying is that this kind of blatant political propaganda is exactly why I stopped donating financial support to wiki initiative.

Perduta (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snore, there is nothing else to add to this discussion then as Wikipedia only takes reliable sources seeing as you don't believe in the sources, there is nothing we can do to change that and it won't be changed.NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 10:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Snore" right back at your arrogant attitude. We did not have a referendum, nor vote on signing UN agenda, so it's a legitimate party political concern. You have absolutely no right to discredit everyone who doesn't support it as "fringe conspiracy theorist". The copyright exemption on grounds of fair-use of material is not yours to judge... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perduta (talk • contribs) 11:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's consider this settled. I have used the guardian saying specifically they are fringe. 49.224.242.18 (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"the Guardian" is to be the definitive authority on who is fringe conspiracy media? It's settled alright, but have you any idea how ridiculous this makes Wikimedia look? I've published my conclusion elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perduta (talk • contribs) 12:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, we will all be better served if you continue to post elsewhere.--Pokelova (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The guardian is a left leaning "politically correct" British news paper. They do not qualify as a "reputable source" in deciding which political parties in New Zealand would be "fringe conspiracy". Furthermore I find your statement is adversarial and vexatious. It does not contribbute to the discussion and you either remove it or stop putting it back when I do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perduta (talk • contribs)