Talk:Antipodean Resistance

Hoax, or meme exploitation?

This page seems to be about a group of young men (3 or 4) and their girlfriends pranking or "shit-stirring" the political left, possibly even a false flag operation or a cynical method to raise funds by generating "publicity by drama".

One of the page references refers to a secret ASIO briefing to parliament as a "source", yet this is self contradictory, how is it both a source and a secret?

Examination of the "group's" (possibly just a single young male) website (not hosted in Australia) reveals a uniform writing style that has a tongue in cheek or sarcastic tone to it at times further reinforcing the impression that the entire phenomena is trivial, not at all political, and most likely a modern media hoax or prank of some form.

I wonder if this article needs to have WP:NN applied? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmatthews (talk • contribs) 21:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

If you think the subject is a hoax, you can attempt to have the article speedy-deleted by adding the template {{db-G3}} to the top of the page. I wouldn't recommend this, though, as I don't think it would be successful. If you think the subject is not a hoax, but the group is non-notable, you can nominate it for deletion -- see the instructions at WP:AfD. Again, I don't think this would be successful, as the article has a fair number of third-party sources. If you simply believe that the members of the organization are "shit-stirring", you're going to need a citation from a WP:RS that says that, since we don't allow "original research", i.e. the opinions of our editors, in articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Alt-right

Anyone reckon AR are an Alt-right group? I've always seen the Alt-right as an American thing. I see these guys as neo-Nazi skinheads and that's what most the sources say. Interested in what other editors think. Bacondrum (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I reckon that we should follow reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, just been seeing some dodgy behaviour from Beyond My Ken. You are correct. 203.214.85.74 (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

As I said on Talk:Alt-right, the description most often used for AR is "neo-Nazi", but that doesn't exclude that "alt-right" has also been used as an identifier by reliable sources, which, as Grayfell says, we follow. That's why the article identifies them as "neo-Nazi" in the lede sentence, and only mentions "alt-right" later in the lede. (There really is a method to our madness.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken Fair enough. Now I'd ask you kindly to stop making spurious demands, attacking me as a sock puppet and calling me a POV editor. We might be able to manage a civil discussion about content and I might actually take what you say seriously if you can manage that. 203.214.85.74 (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: You have a Wikipedia account, please edit with it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: I've looked at your user page, and if what you've written there is accurate, I would say that you and I have a lot in common, philosophically and ideologically. But -- and here's the thing -- I don't know you, and I cannot look inside your head, so the only way I can judge who you are is by your actions here on Wikipedia, and, frankly, those actions have resembled the kind of person I often come across, a right-wing POV editor, much more so than the person you describe on your user page. I would ask you to take serious stock of your editing to see how it looks to an outsider, and, if you are indeed the person you represent yourself to be, to alter your editing in such a way as to present that person you say you are to other Wikipedia editors. If you do, then I'm sure we can work together in a collegial and constructive way, but if you continue to edit in the same fashion as you have been, I'm afraid we are going to continue to be at loggerheads. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi all. From what I've seen (in a brief googling session), this group is commonly referred to neo-Nazi and only occasionally lumped in with others under the alt-right descriptor, which I don't think is heavily used in Australia anyway, and seems to lend an air of legitimacy to what seems like a potentially dangerous and violent group. I'd stick to neo-Nazi in the lead (which, as WP:LEAD points out, is not a lede in the journalistic sense). I'd also like to see the lead/lede polished up a bit as per the guidelines - no citations (unless to support a contentious assertion), providing a summary of the most important points in the body. And everything in the lead should also be contained within the body. Maybe mention the source calling them alt-right in the body. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Laterthanyouthink, yes I agree 100%. Bacondrum (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Antipodean Resistance Logo.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)