Talk:Norman Lowell

• Please post new messages at the bottom of the page to prevent confusion.
• Please sign your comments. Type ~~~~ after your text or use the edit toolbar.
• Please use section headings to separate conversation topics.

Removal of links

I've removed some links, mainly for balance (there is only one critical external link and more generally[1] because of the guidelines here[2]:

• Viva Malta - a discussion board in some way affiliated to Lowell and his party though the link is unclear - in any event, it seems it is certainly not official and is a discussion board for right wingers in Malta. It is linked to in this article and Imperium Europa and there is not need for an "external links" mention of it also.
• Maltafly - again it is linked to where appropriate, and is more or less supportive of Lowell and far-right politics.
• National Vanguard - this far-right American white nationalist website is linked where appropriate in the article and does not need to be promoted here.

If anyone objects, please discuss. --SandyDancer 21:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Viva Malta is the official website of the party, as evidenced by the FAQs etc, and it's not just a forum, it also includes various media (interviews, speeches etc) and news. Imperium Europa, as far as I know, is merely Norman Lowell's website. It should be listed here as his "personal website".

Regarding Maltafly, I have no idea from where you got the impression that it's "more or less supportive" of Lowell's politics. Did you read any of the info on the website? For one thing, the Maltafly authors are completely against the EU (that was the whole point of the website in the beginning), and that alone goes against Lowell's idea of a European Empire or whatever. And secondly, they constantly oppose and make fun of Lowell's racist theories.

Anyway I think this website, along with Viva Malta, should be listed in the External links section because a number of interviews are available for download on both websites. Without those websites, nobody would really know what the party is all about.

As for National Vanguard, a good number of Lowell articles are available there, so I also think it should be listed. Again, where else are people going to read about his views? I mean, there's "Nazi Watch" listed, which isn't really a critical website but rather an ANR-owned website (most probably, from what I read) full of personal attacks on the party members. Fair enough, I think it should be there anyway, but I also think all the other websites should be listed because they all include useful information on both the party and Norman Lowell himself.

Marcus1234 09:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

But the point is that providing those external links is (a) unneccessary because relevant sections are already referred to in the text and (b) creates bias because it piles in lots of positive links about Lowell (I have read Maltafly and it is relatively sympathetic to Lowell). None need be linked in this way.

On Viva Malta - we were explicitly told by a supporter of the party who created this page and the (now deleted) Viva Malta page that it was not an official page of the party. In any case, even if it is, it is just a discussion board and its not necessary or desirable to link to it. The official homepage of the part is already linked. --SandyDancer 10:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I have to disagree with this. There are no links to any of his interviews on the page, and that to me, is what creates bias, especially when the page is full of information AGAINST Norman Lowell. I went through the page, and there is not ONE single positive thing about him or his party... I think it's only just to include links to his very own articles and interviews. Why not? Give me a reason why there shouldn't be a link to his interviews, speeches, and writings?

Viva Malta should definitely be added because it is the official website (it's not just a forum; did you even visit the website?) AND includes videos of speeches made by Norman Lowell.

And Maltafly is not sympathetic to Lowell AT ALL! [3][4] [5].

I can't see how these links would "create bias because it piles in lots of positive links about Lowell." These are HIS OWN words, so exactly are they positive? These are not fansites or anything, they are his very own words and ideas on which this very article is based on! I really can't understand what you're saying at all...I'll ask a few Maltese people to see what they think.

Marcus1234 11:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've visited the website. It doesn't seem to be official to methe FAQs you refer to do not say anything about Imperium Europa. But, anyway, that is beside the point. There is no requirement to link to any and all official sites - I agree we should link to the party's official site (which we do), but a discussion forum for members is something else. Wikipedia is not a directory of links and it isn't here to help promote the ideologies of the political organisations which are notable enough to have an article.

In so far as the content of the article is based on what is contained on Maltafly, Viva Malta and National Vanguard, those sites are used as references. We already link to them. No need to do it twice. --SandyDancer 11:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I'd appreciate if someone checked this article for neutrality. To me, this reads like an anti-Lowell propaganda piece written by some Maltatoday journalist. Marcus1234 07:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You should have seen what it looked like before. Unfortunately there isn't an enormous amount that is both positive and notable about Lowell out there. I think if someone has on overwhelmingly negative public image, an article is inevitably going to read as such. Most people who who read the article on Adolf Hitler, to use an extreme example, no doubt come away with a negative view of him - that doesn't necessarily mean the article isn't balanced. If you think this article isn't balanced I suggest you add any information about Lowell you are aware of which is positive, sourced and of a comparable level of notability to the negative things already in there. If you aren't aware of such information, you shouldn't be saying the article has neutrality issues because you have no foundation for that view. --SandyDancer 14:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not adding or deleting anything from the article because I do not know enough about the person, but here's a few reasons why I think it's POV:

• "In 2004, Malta Today newspaper has described the party as consisting of Lowell and "a handful of disciples". " - Okay, so one journalist decided to describe the movement as such, but how exactly is this worthy an inclusion in an encylopedia article? And this was back in 2004... and back then, as far as I know, the "movement" consisted of Norman Lowell alone, so I don't think this comment is relevant today.

• Lowell has described Mein Kampf as "The Book" and Adolf Hitler as "The Hero" [9]. Of Hitler, Lowell has said "He was – and IS – right" [10]. - in what respect did he say this? In what respect is Hitler "right"? Killing the Jews? Banning tobacco smoke? Despising communism? Or was "He" right about everything? The quote as it is seems to be taken out of context. I (the reader) need more info.

The fact a politician praises Hitler is a notable fact in itself - and would be included in the page of any other politician accordingly. I don't know what parts of Hitler's programme he agrees with, and we don't need that much detail anyway. --SandyDancer 11:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I should think its extremely relevant which aspect of Hitler's political program a given political figure supports (and which he does not). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 06:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Second, I would like to know which parts of Hitler's program Lowell supports. This article is full of intentional false implications and other non-neutral wording. Whether a fact about somebody is 'positive' or 'negative' is subjective unless it is worded in such a way as to present it AS negative or positive. Sorry liberals, NPOV requires that you accept antirevisionism as a valid and legitimate POV and demonizing it therefor violates neutrality.108.246.242.125 (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• In 2006, police investigations were carried out into possible links between Lowell and his supporters and several arson attacks [21][22]. - How come the fact that no evidence was found in regards to this is not mentioned? What did Lowell say in regards to the accusation? The sentence as it is implies that Lowell was in fact part of the arson.

The word "possible" is key here, but I will change to "alleged" to be clearer. The sources support the fact that there were allegations. --SandyDancer 11:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• And in relation to this, I read the comment by User:MarcoPoloVivaMalta (who states that he's the administrator of the website) and he states that "Imperium Europa" and "Viva Malta" are actually two separate movements. This makes more sense I guess because the Imperium wesbite only talks about the "White Europe" or whatever, whereas Viva Malta talks about other social issues. I think this should be mentioned in the Lowell article, and a Viva Malta article should be rewritten (I had approved its deletion but I had no idea it was a separate movement).

Marcus1234 17:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Viva Malta

What is your evidence, other than the comment from MarcoPoloVivaMalta, that they are two actual political movements? As far as I can see Viva Malta is a discussion board for Lowell supporters? Having worked on these articles for some time and read all the sources that have been made available, I don't agree with your edits. Also note that Viva Malta isn't notable enough for an article, whatever it describes itself as. The verifiability problems are self-evident also. --SandyDancer 11:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is all the evidence needed really. He's the administrator of the website and core member of the movement. Norman Lowell also always says in his speeches and interviews: "Our movements of Imperium Europa and Viva Malta." Imperium Europa is the political grouping idea, while Viva Malta is the local political party.

I found a couple of threads on the forum that kind of explain this:

[6]

[7]

Marcus1234 11:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right there's no real evidence supporting this claim that they are two different movements (except posts on the forum). Perhaps we should ask MarcoPoloVivaMalta to provide evidence regarding this? Could you do that? Marcus1234 12:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If he provides third party sources, we can expand on this disputed concept that Viva Malta is a "movement" as opposed to a discussion website for Lowell and his supporters / friends. --SandyDancer 12:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I will ask him myself. I don't understand why you keep saying that it's a "forum" though - vivamalta.org is a news website actually, or at least that's what it appears to be! Marcus1234 12:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Out of a sense of morbid curiosity I followed the links you provided to posts on the discussion board. Quite apart from the fact these are just posts on a discussion board, I can't see that they indicate Viva Malta is a "movement". It has none of the characteristics of a "movement", but has all the characteristics on a non-notable internet discussion board for a small group of friends. For that matter, it isn't a news site in the conventional sense either.

Asking someone who runs this site for clarification may not in fact produce answers containing any objective fact which stands up to the Wikipedia requirements of verifiability. --SandyDancer 12:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, non-notable discussion forum for a small group of friends? You're mistaken, man. VivaMalta happens to be more popular than all other Maltese political websites and amongst the most popular Maltese websites (Alexa.com). Marcus1234 12:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. But I sincerely doubt that. If that were the case I would expect more than a few people to contribute to it (there are only a handful of people posting) and it to register more than a few relevant hits on google. There seems to be a totally unconnected Television Malta programme in Malta with the same name which is more notable. --SandyDancer 12:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, you're comfusing the website itself with the forum. I, for example, am a regular visitor of the website but I'm not even registered on the forum. Regarding google hits, it's best to search for "vivamalta" rather than "viva malta" (Viva Malta is a very common Maltese exclamation, like "Forza Italia" or "Vive le France", therefore you'll get a lot of unrelated websites), and this returns 16,000 hits, all fo which are related to the Viva Malta website. Marcus1234 16:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As you are a regular visitor to this website (which has delightful articles like Africans to Europe: Pay us or we will invade!, Malta is being overun by Africans, Low IQs are Africa's curse and The Rape of Europe), in the interests of openness can you answer this question: are you far-right/white nationalist? This article has already suffered due to the efforts of one of these - User:Drew88 - to use WP for propaganda purposes. I hope we aren't going to go through the whole rigmarole again. Don't be offended. --SandyDancer 16:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I am not. I can't see how the articles you mentioned are in any way "White Nationalist" or "far-right", except maybe the article about IQ. And even if that is so, just because I am a regular visitor doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with everything they say, right? I am a regular visitor of leftist websites (MaltaToday), Christian conservative websites(ANR), and the Viva Malta site, which I consider to be populist. Marcus1234 17:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If on your moral compass those articles aren't offensive, we have a very different world view.

As far as I am concered Viva Malta is a far-right hate site obsessed with xenophobia frequented by neo-nazis. You may not be one, granted, but I am sure you understood why I wanted to ask the question.

As I have said earlier, the main point here is that the Lowell article meets Wikipedia's standards of neutrality. Facts are presented in an impartial manner, and the fact that the article is heavy on information perceived by most people as "negative" is because Lowell - by his own admission - holds extremist views, and eschews the mainstream. Without omitting (a) reference to criminal prosecutions and investigations involving him and (b) a fair and accurate representation of his political positions - so in other words, without a total whitewash (which is what neo-nazi editor Drew88 wanted - the article must stay as it is.

If you think anything is missing from the article that is notable enough for inclusion, add it, so long as you have appropriate sources. I am removing the neutrality tag as you put it up days ago and haven't substantiated your reasons for doing so. --SandyDancer 10:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, in this this Times of Malta article Viva Malta is described as an "extreme right forum" and as a "website" - not as a movement or political party. --SandyDancer 10:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm readding it because I still think the article is biased. Do not remove it before somebody else checks the article for neutrality. Marcus1234 11:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please justify your assertion that the article is biased. You have already made edits. The tag could stay for a considerable period of time if your intention is to wait for some passer by to come and carry our a neutrality check. Have you actively sought a third opinion? --SandyDancer 11:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You can't be serious. I check the article history and it seems you're the only person to have made contributions to the article, and you have stated yourself that your world view is in total opposition of this man, so how exactly is it possible that the page is not biased? As I said originally, the page reads like an anti-Lowell propaganda piece - it doesn't matter if all the info is sourced; the point is that all the info is negative. Example: If I had to write an article about The Chrurch, and only include information regarding pedophile priests, that would still be biased, even if the info is all true and sourced. The article is not balanced, period. I cannot add any info myself because no such info exists on newspapers or online sources currently - since journalists are smart enough not to include positive information on this controversial politician (duh!). Marcus1234 12:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the article you cited, where Viva Malta is described as an "extreme right forum" and "website, is actually a letter written by Martin Degiorgio, who is the spokesman of ANR! Marcus1234 12:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Virtually nothing you have written is reasonable, fair or true. Are you suggesting people who don't agree with the "world view" of someone like Lowell shouldn't edit the article about him? The article doesn't read like an anti-Lowell propaganda piece - justify your view that it does, without resorting to ad hominem attacks. As I said earlier, if your argument is that the article is biased (even though you concede it is sourced) because no info is positive, and you are of the view that we won't be able to find positive info in the media, the only solution would be to delete the article. Don't just resort to bitching. --SandyDancer 23:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

And another thing - as you raked over edit histories and my past statements, I'd like to make the observation that pretty much all of your contributions on Wikipedia have been about:

• Fringe, far-right Maltese politics and politicians
• Race issues, and in particular a consistent pattern of editing articles about Maltese people and Maltese language to play down Arab connections.

Not unlike Drew88, then, the last person to come to the Normal Lowell page and jump up and down about it being biased. I am not suggesting you are his sock - I sincerely believe you aren't. But I do think you have a cheek alleging that I am guilty of biased editing, when you are clearly in sympathy with Lowell's views and frequent his party's discussion board. --SandyDancer 23:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Are yuo kidding SandyDancer? I've contributed to ALL kinds of articles related to Malta. I've edited all articles which regard Maltese politics, and that includes all five Maltese political parties (apparently they are all fringe and far-right! Is everything far-right to you??? Can you please name these fringe far-right parties I contributed to? Thanks). I've also edited the Malta article as well as the Maltese people and Maltese language articles, which were unreadable! I'm not as you said, playing down Arab connections at all. I've also edited the Maltese language templates because they were written in ENGLISH and nobody bothered to change them - how is that for playing down Arabic connections? Apparently all these edits revolve around race issues! Wow. And to answer your question, you are indeed guilty of biased editing and you know it (can you argue that your contributions weren't meant to make Lowell look like a mentally insane monster?), since you have clearly revealed that you abhor everything about this movement. I, on the other hand, happen to agree with some issues and disagree with most (I like to be rational), since I am not an anti-semite or Hitler lover. I will remove the neutrality template since the biasses is mostly in the Hitler/holocaust stub section. Marcus1234 06:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

SandyDancer, you might not be aware that I'm not the only one to express sympathy with Lowell's views (mind you, I don't agree with his bullshit Nazi sympathy and anti-semitism). But we Maltese people are all like that; we don't want foreigners living here, especially those who aren't European. A survey last year evidenced this: According to the survey, carried out by telephone among 300 respondents between July 23 and 30, an overwhelming 97.3% of the Maltese said that nobody had the right to come and settle in Malta. Only 2.3% said this right should be given to everybody. Respondents were also asked whether they would be prepared to accept members of particular races as neighbours. In the case of Europeans, the acceptance rate was a thumping 95%, but only 32% were prepared to have Chinese or similar people living next door; 27% had no objection to Americans living next door and 22% did not mind having Indian neighbours. Palestinians and Arabs in general were unwelcome by 95.3% with Africans (90%) and Jews (89%) faring only slightly better. These are all quotes from the survey itself which I don'think is available online. Marcus1234 07:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

From what you have said, the poll question asked whether "everybody" should have the right to come settle in Malta - of course people said no! An example of a clearly biased poll question! No wonder "only 2.3% said this right should be given to everybody"!

If Lowell was as popular, and if his views so universal, he'd have got more than 1600 votes when he stood for election. Sounds like he has generated plently of publicity for himself... seems to me you are adopting the standard far-right excuse for why you don't do well at the polls. Yes, when asked biased, leading poll questions, people might give answers that seem to agree with your views. But when given the chance to vote for them, people don't. Anyway, this page isn't for political discussion - but this directly relates to the way you want to edit the article - if people have a positive view of Lowell, there would be some evidence of it, something you could verifiably insert into the article. Please do so if you can. Until you can, don't bitch about the article being biased. --SandyDancer 13:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The poll was not performed by the movement or by Norman Lowell, it was performed by a sociologist and it appeared on all local newspapers. The results were in fact deemed "highly disturbing" by the surveyer and in fact the title of the article was "The Maltese: an intolerant society." And the main poll question was: "How would you feel if the following people became your neighbours?" Marcus1234 17:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was carried out by Lowell or his supporters - but I did say that, from your description of what was asked and the outcome, it appears the question was leading biased. I stand by that. --SandyDancer 17:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the main qeustion was: "How would you feel if these people became your neighbours?" Pretty straightforward unbaised question. The overwhelming majority said that they wouldn't accept a non-European (especially Arabs, Jews, and Blacks - see earlier post) as their neighbour. But enough about the poll; I simply wanted to point out to you that most Maltese are, to some degree, xenophobic. Marcus1234 18:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Look guys, I think the best thing you guys do to see what you are going to delete and what you are going to keep is to ask me and I will reply. I am the administrator of Viva Malta's website and also form part of the leadership.

first of all Norman Lowell is a person and not a movement therefore an article on him should be on him personally. What movements he forms part of are a totally different subject no? im going to explain the entire situation as if its US politics so its all nice and clear.

president bush forms part of the republican party which nowadays gets its ideas from neocon thinkers.

norman lowell forms part of viva malta which gets its ideas from imperium europa.

the only real difference is that

a. vm is not set up officially as a movement or party but will do so when its needed. as things stand we are too small to need to.

b. The thinker behind IE is lowell. he is also the main personality. he appears alone in EU elections under the IE banner wheras VM would contest local.

imo lowell, IE and VM are 3 different subjects. do what the hell you like at the end of the day but stop the libelous nonsense. that is why i created the vm article in the first place. it was deleted within 12 hours without even a consultation with the author! a debate does not involve one side.

maltafly has nothing to do with any of the 3 as its a political satire site. neither vm, ie or lowell are affiliated in any way.

with the way you guys have behaved you may as well merge topics on bush, the republican party and neocons. it would be funny if Wiki wasnt known for its questionable tactics involving items it disagrees with.

i am thankful that i have the moral integrity to allow all opinions on the VM forum even if it means me going to court. we allow everyone from nazis to commies and all in between. wiki has a lot to learn!

sandy dancer really needs to learn to be more tolerant. the reason that such 'hate sites' exist is because there has been no debate on such issues as immigration. the maltese agreement to the UN refugee convention states that we have our limitations and can only take a small amount of refugees. the people are being ignored and thus you have racism. every person has the right to live amongst his own.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcoPoloVivaMalta (talk • contribs)

There is plenty if discussion on immigration in Malta, from what I can see. It seems to be quite a hot topic. People just don't necessarily end the discussion with "so lets expel all immigrants", which appears (correct me if I am wrong) to be the conclusion you want them to come to... Stop setting up straw men and don't disrupt Wikipedia to further your own aims. This is an encylopedia, not a soapbox. --SandyDancer 13:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

a. vm is not set up officially as a movement or party but will do so when its needed. as things stand we are too small to need to. That's all we wanted to know basically, thanks. Since it's not officially as party, it cannot have it's own page, since as it is, it's merely a website and forum. But I do think we should add the site to the external links section. Marcus1234 07:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree we should add the party's discussion forum to the external links and will resist this to the end. Other political parties have discussion fora for their members and they, rightly, don't appear on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a webspace provider / social networking site, Wikipedia is not a directory of links. Please read these guidelines and reconsider. We already link to the offical site, which contains information about the Imperium Europa party and Lowell himself. --SandyDancer 13:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

(Sandydancer - "If you think this article isn't balanced I suggest you add any information about Lowell you are aware of which is positive, sourced and of a comparable level of notability to the negative things already in there.")

...very well I shall seek to fill that gap to the extent of my ability. Before I begin I should note that I am currently a sporadically regular poster on the VM forums. My leanings are best termed as far-centre as I draw from both sides of the limited political spectrum. I also do not consider myself to have any screws loose for generally supporting Norman Lowell - the person, but I digress. I do possess a generally favourable bias in this contribution but I can assure you that I am consciously fair in my writings where possible and ask for only an ear in consideration, understanding your personal biases to the contrary.

In my time as a member I have noted the following beliefs of a positive nature that I recall at present.

a.) He believes that Malta is fast being stifled beneath a carpet of concrete (in the form of typically sprawling developments). He was present at the rear of an environmentally-conscious protest (regarding the unfortunately-passed amendment to the laws extending the development zones) with a miserable turn out of barely a thousand or so persons, as was myself also present. Even though it was not organized by himself he still attended and kept a respectable distance towards the rear so as not to encrouch.

Norman Lowell believes that the way forward for malta is the deconstruction of virtually all buildings of non-relevance (mainly to a historical or cultural perspective), post-dating the 1800s, initiating the long long path of rehabilitation of the lands themselves and the setting up of a centralized vertically pyramidical structure of both beauty and character (admittedly I have heard several alternatives to this particular structure but this seems most prominent to the best of my knowledge).

b.) He believes that Malta (as it is tiny), and many other countries (mainly upon Afro-Asian continents as a consequence of the massively unsustainable population growths there) ought to scale back their populations to levels more sustainable to the environment (and, after all, why does humanity have an obsession of rattling up their numbers as if preparing for an impending apocalypse? There is more to life than quantity).

c.) He also believes that the socio-economic system of today makes no sense at all for as far as the humanitarian aspects of the human work-life is concerned. The concept of working one's youth away to the tune of 40 or more hours a week is a system that is no longer necessary thanks to the advent of relatively new technologies. It seems a massive shame that in today's world we see people working themselves into a psychological ruin while Europe's socio-economic situation groans under the weight of roughly a 10% unemployment rate. And this is just the tip of the iceberg for as far as Norman Lowell's views on the subject are concerned.

d.) While I personally believe that he does go overboard on the issue of Israel, I do feel that his words on the subject are not completely unjustified. Today Israel is still extorting certain countries for WWII monies. I shall presume for just a moment that this is fair game (although I do not believe in victimizing the children and grandchildren of the WWII generation, no matter how wrong they might have been). I never see any discussion of Israel compensating Palestinians (the people of what used to be Palestine) or the Lebanese (an aggressive bloody blitzkreig over 2 captured soldiers?) to a comparably fair tune. Before one suggests that this point is irrelevant I do believe that it is so within the context of not just national (Maltese) security (in the context of a phone tapping contract almost being awarded to an Israeli company by the Maltese government) and international security (due to the low key yet high profiles they occupy from which to exert influence beyond the borders of Israel).

Again I believe that Norman Lowell does go overboard. Does this make him an "anti-semite"? Perhaps... although a prominent argument to the contrary is that his arguments tend to stem from a love of his country and a waryness of Israel based upon its dismal peace-keeping record (count the UN resolutions flaunted) than an active hatred of the individual Jew. This is a vast topic in itself and I realize that I have deviated from the topic somewhat.

e.) Norman Lowell is often criticized for his hard stance against african immigration. However here one must note that there are two sides of the coin. One side is the persecuted african, fleeing mostly economic plights back in his home country, but sometimes also escaping strife and political or religious persecution. On the other side of the coin there is a small island with a crowded population. The situation at present is that this year alone 1,899 immigrants have landed upon Maltese shores. The population is 400,000. One might say "big deal". 0.5% in 2-3 years but is this really a sane way to deal with the situation? 0.5% means that the population are being leached upon ever more prominently as time goes by (keep in mind that Norman Lowell was protesting against this impending problem many many years ago, before it was nearly as prolific) and the Maltese population is becoming progressively poorer not only economically but also in identity. Malta is becoming multi-cultural and I am afraid that it simply is not prepared to become so now or any time foreseeable.

Norman believes that they should be stopped 14 miles out and turned back. Those who make it to shore should be shuttled out asap. At first this sounds heartless 'but' swinging the focus around to the US in relation to Cuba, many Cubans lose their lives trying to make the journey to the US in search for a better life. The laws in the US stipulate that such migrants caught at sea are sent back asap 'but' those who make land are legally untouchable in that regards. Hence the poisoned carrot. Truth be told, many many cubans would not have lost their lives if the US obliterated the legal enomoly of automatic asylum rights for Cubans upon making the trip as many would no longer make the attempt in the first place (and the same applies to Malta in regards to african immigrants). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow cup (talk • contribs)

---

In conclusion I very readily concede that Norman Lowell is not a perfect person. Not by a long shot. The main reason why I believe in him is because I perceive him to be a lot more genuine than many (if not all) of the other mainstream politicians in Malta... he is raw and this is what draws me to support Norman Lowell. He 'is', in my view, genuine, albeit sometimes poorly expressed and certainly poorly represented (where else does one find censorship of a political movement in the form of non-publication?).

Incidentally VM and IE are parallel movements with many points of convergence. They are as the moon is to the Earth in regards to their rotation around the Sun. This is how they behave, and even their explanation of their relationships coincide with this view (Imperium Europa the Europe-oriented movement and VivaMalta the Malta-oriented movement).

Thank you for your consideration. I believe that all the above is true to the best of my knowledge and hope that this clarifies that Norman Lowell is human like the rest of us, with a vision for the future.

Incidentally this is my first post... I had intended on placing this in the previous section but the edit button in the 'Neutrality' section merely got me to edit this section istead. Any inconvenience this may cause is regretted.

Shadow cup 13:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. However what I was asking for wasn't so much an argument as to why a Maltese individual might sympathise with some of what Lowell says - but rather details as to what positive, sourced and notable content is lacking from this article. I am fast concluding there is none and we do not have identifiable neutrality problems. --SandyDancer 18:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

IE is not set up as an official movement either. are you going to delete that too? a person is not his idea and neither is his organisation. vm is vm, ie is ie and nl is nl. it is irrelevant as to if they are officially registered or not. read vm and read ie and note the differences.

i would prefer there be no article at all than the slander there currently is. the people who are editing the articles have their own anti-agenda. i have no problems with a neutral article but sandy seems to! happy you have your censorship? MarcoPoloVivaMalta 23:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Censorship? What censorship? There is none here - apart from you and your fellow far-right friend's refusal to accept negative but factual material which appears on this page. If you don't get the whole encyclopedia concept, I suggest you back off.

You are talking nonsense. Just because you don't have it your own way, you throw your toys out of the pram. For the benefit of third parties, my interest in this article came about when it looked like this thanks to User:Drew88, a neo-nazi editor who was blocked more than once but has now stopped editing Wikipedia (though others seem to have picked up where he left, exactly at the time he departed). The article was whitewash, a propaganda piece. Now the article is sourced and actually portrays the subject in an honest light. If that honest light isn't the positive view this person's fans have of him, so be it. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a free web hosting service for you. I am perfectly happy to see individual sections discussed and amended, but simply trying to cast doubt on the whole article because you want Lowell to look nice will get you nowhere.

And don't use the word slander so lightly. You clearly have as little grasp of what it means as you do punctuation and reasoned debate. --SandyDancer 23:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I shall intentionally skirt the issue of censorship here (my reference to it was merely in regard to newspaper articles that very rarely get published in newspapers, including several of my own (shrugs) - besides I cannot presume your motivations to be anything but objective in regards to the topic of censorship). I agree with SandyDancer's opinion that an article on any subject (regardless of the person involved) should not read like a propaganda piece. I think we also agree that such pieces should also not be overly faithful to hearsay (including that pronounced by media sources). Sources are to be considered in their own context and good judgement used to determine what is or is not an unbiased statement.

As an aside, yes I am a maltese individual (does this somehow make my input less relevant? I may lay little claim to reliability of my input (as a mere individual) but I believe my input valid nonetheless) and I thank you for taking the time to read any input that I may have to offer.

Since this discussion sould have been about the article itself as you rightly alluded to just now I shall focus on such for comment.

Pre- Criminal prosecutions and allegations: - Nothing to comment about per se.

In Criminal prosecutions and allegations:

"In 2006, police investigations were carried out into allegations of links between Lowell and his supporters and several arson attacks" - Just a note: - I joined in the period right after the wave of arson attacks - I have never heard even a single suggestion alluding to any such activity - if anything I have heard only scattered speculation as to who might have had the motivation ("Arsonists attack Daphne on same night Norman Lowell organises BBQ" (which Norman Lowell organizes specifically for spiritual cleansing purposes, and a break from the drudgeries of social life)).

It is only because I am uncertain whether investigations on the matter are concluded that I don't suggest the inclusion of " but no such conclusions had been made." or words to that effect at the end of the quoted sentence. As it stands the wprds suggest that there is serious suspicion of involvement, which I do not believe to be so (although you would be right to point out that I do not provide concrete links to back this up at this point).

External Links: - Um... I'm going to have to note that VivaMalta (whether the website section or the forum section) is more objective than Nazi Watch Malta, of all sites. One has only to take a look at the stories that the site twists into being to understand what I'm saying (not to mention all the references to 'The freak with the stick', 's**t-shover', 'Nazi pig', and many many more tags that one would not ever dream of considering examples of objectivity. If that weren't bad enough this site also makes it a personal mission to name and shame any establishments that have the common courtesy to accept Norman Lowell and his supporters for an evening (the naming isn't so bad as the context in which it is done)).

The short of it is that Viva Malta is more relevant to this article than NWM. This is just my opinion however.

Er... and incidentally the Lowellist site is not backed by Norman Lowell himself (http://www.vivamalta.org/forum/showthread.php?t=6323&highlight=lowellist).

I'm afraid that I haven't the time to look through the references right now but shall do so later. I note that it is not my intention to see this page become a propaganda page, and frankly the article itself seems ok per se (although it would be nice to see a little more about what Norman Lowell stands for imho rather than focusing upon the controversy that surrounds him). I also note that it is not specifically my expectation to see NWM and Lowellist taken down. I merely note that if those two are deemed relevant enough to include in 'external links' then it seems only fair to me that the vivamalta.org website also gets mentioned.

Again thank you for your consideration.

Shadow cup 10:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the Lowellist because, if it is a "fake" as you say, it is confusing and doesn't add anything to the article.

Nazi Watch Malta stays because (a) it helps establish notability (Lowell is notable enough to attract detractors who will go the trouble of setting up a website and (b) it provides balance - if you look at the Wikipedia pages for other far-right politicians and parties, you will see there is in most cases a balance of positive (i.e. official) and negative links. Here the ratio is 1:1 - can't say fairer than that. Links don't have to be objective or balanced - sources do, links don't, as long as they are adequately described (which they are here).

As for your comment about there being no allegations that Lowell + supporters were involved in arson attacks - the press sources make such allegations, as did the Maltese police apparently. Read the references. --SandyDancer 10:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so you delete an external link because somebody said that it's "fake"? Would you have deleted Nazi Watch if somebody came here and said it's "fake"? I really feel like resorting to an inevitable personal attack (you really have it coming), but apparently you can't on wikipedia. I'm reverting your edits. As you always say: "Please provide a [neutral] source" that states The Lowellist is "fake", whatever that means. And, as far as I know, there is no Wikipedia policy that states that the External Links have to be "balanced", but there is a policy that states that anonymous sources and personal webpages should not be included (not even in external links), and Nazi Watch is both of these. Marcus1234 11:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no policy stating external links can't be anonymous - there is a policy which says this applies to links used as sources - the distinction is a sensible one in this case. I seem to remember having this exact same conversation with User:Drew88...

See Shadow Cup's post above for explanation about the Lowellist - there is a post on this "Viva Malta" site he has linked to about it. Earlier you were saying the VM site was "official" and should be linked to - now you are saying it isn't, it would seem. You can't have it both ways. --SandyDancer 12:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay I misunderstood the policy then (I'm not 100% sure though...I'll trust you). Now, regarding the Lowellist, there is no evidence that the site is "fake", even if members say it is. The point is the website exists and it promotes the ideologies of these movements.Marcus1234 17:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am slightly dubious about putting it back up when someone has claimed it is a hoax and has linked us to a message to that effect on this supposedly official web forum...but by all means put it back up if you desire. --SandyDancer 17:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's already there man. The forum is indeed an official forum, but what they say in that thread is merely speculation. There is no evidence supporting the claims that it's a hoax website. Marcus1234 17:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As regards the Lowellist site, I note that I never bothered to read the content as, as the linked thread posted above indicates, it does not provide details specifically backed by Norman Lowell (as stated in his first comment on the issue he maintains that the two official sites pertaining to Imperium Europa and Vivamalta are in fact those two sites alone). However if I were to choose between VM and Lowellist as being not only more official but more accurate then I would certainly choose vivamalta.org as it is not only to Imperium Europa as the Moon is to the Earth but also Norman Lowell is very active on the forums of vivamalta, including placing announcements of meetings and get-togethers and expressing his views in very direct fashion. I am unaware of direct statements by Norman Lowell on the Lowellist website (never viewed it properly and never shall until it is acknowledged as a valid site by members of VM, including NL, as I recognize that it may taint my perspective of the man (as NWM has occasionally done - one starts to wonder when one reads the sort of news that it focuses upon - one should draw the line between constructive and destructive criticisms).

In regards to Marcus's comments, I note that it is my intention to generate inclusivity rather than exclusivity. If he considers the site tennable then I honestly have no real beef with it being there (in comparison to NWM anyway). Perhaps he would find it less objectionable to suggest that it may be a fansite based on Norman Lowell's writings?

I do not wish to stifle constructive criticisms (which NWM sadly lacks) as I am a firm believer in the merits of debate, which can only be healthily persued in an atmosphere of steady communication with opposing factions. Truth be told, if NWM were to say it all less the kicks below the belt (the name-calling) and were it to indulge in steady communication with Vivamalta (yes, the significance of VM creeps in again, as NWM itself seems to recognize from its somewhat regular links to the forum section) then I would likely fully support its right to exist regardless of choice of anonymity as I would see it as a very valid source of ideological sustenance (when ideas clash in a fair environment they become perpetually stronger until one reaches the forge limit before the other, hence subjugating the opposing idea beneath simple superiority, to the merit of both ideas concerned... but I digress yet again.

I am currently ignorant to Wikipedia's policies and shall also trust you well-versed on the matter. Since there exists a reluctance to consider VivaMalta to be just about as official as the Imperium Europa site for as far as Norman Lowell is concerned, might I suggest that the relationship between Norman Lowell and Viva Malta at least be included in the Trivia section as a potentially more palatable solution?

Perhaps along the lines of "Lowell is an active contributor and leading force in Vivamalta.org, (sister site to Imperium Europa/ the Malta-oriented site in relation to Imperium Europa)"?

Swinging around to the references, as I had earlier promised I shall place comments as they come (Incidentally I apologize if my words seemed to imply that there were no suggestions made by police or media that Norman Lowell or his supporters may have been involved in the arson attacks. I merely believe that no conclusions came of such speculations, but I am deviating.

Anything but an election for Europe - As regards to Imperium Europa the writer of the article seems not to have mentioned the very core idea of a modern yet aesthetic mono-structure when considering Norman Lowell's views on population (which completely paints him in an unfairly negative light as the concept of 200,000 in 'the three cities and valletta' alone is ludicrous to say the least. I shall put it down to not being informed.

The rest of the resources do not seem to hold any specifically objectionable material imho (as the controversy does exist and in that respect the articles do their 'reporting')... although I do note that, as you may have noticed, newspapers have liberally used the word 'hate' in the titles of their articles relating to Norman Lowell (never mind that I do not recall him ever mentioning the word 'hate' in any of his speeches (I do stand to be corrected however). I shall let that point rest however as I suppose that his criticisms could be interpreted as non-love.

Shadow cup 18:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Civil debate on neutrality

Clearly there are neutrality concerns here. To address them, I have moved the blurb on political descriptions and the mention of National Vanguard into the body of the article, in a way I hope people will find pleasing.--SandyDancer 13:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It somewhat makes more sense that way. I still have [at least] one objection. I still strongly believe the Viva Malta website should be included, and I can't comprehend why you are against this inclusion. It is already established that it is a website directly affiliated with Norman Lowell and Imperium Europa. Also, Norman Lowell is a regular poster on the forum, plus the website itself includes speeches by him available for download. In addition, pretty much every article on the Nazi Watch website constantly makes reference to posts and members of Viva Malta. I think it is only fair to include this website. Marcus1234 17:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't established it is directly linked to Lowell. You yourself have made conflicting claims about this, as have all the other Imperium Europa supporters (Drew88, MarcoPolo etc) who have posted here. One minute you tell us it is official, next moment when it suits it is separate. One moment you say it is a political party, next moment you say it is a discussion forum.

And in any case, even if it was - why do we need to link a discussion forum, official or not? Other articles on political parties don't link to equivalent discussion sites, so why should this one? Wikipedia is not a directory of links,

The fact Lowell posts on this site is neither here not there. We are writing an encylopedia article here, not promoting his ideologies. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

We link to the official site, and we link to an anti- site set up by his opponents to balance that. --SandyDancer 17:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Lowell always refers to VM as a "movement" in his speeches. Secondly, I never said that Viva Malta is not official (?!). Thirdly, why do you keep obtusely saying that it's only a discussion forum? It is very cearly a website with news, articles, video and audio clips etc, that also happens to include a message board. And last but not least, as mentioned previously, Nazi Watch constantly makes references to Viva Malta and labels it a "Nazi movement" ! Marcus1234 18:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems like my thoughts have already been indirectly echoed (or was it the other way around (a manifestation of the common overmind? (shrugs))?). In any case I do urge all participants to keep things civil as I do not feel that there is any need for things to denigrate into informalities.

It is true that Norman Lowell is far more active in the forums than the main site itself. What is true is true. However it is also true that the forum has served for more than mere casual discussion but also as more natural way to express views than a typical website would present. This does posess the short-coming that all and sundry may comment upon any single post (though they don't always bother (no that last reflection does not really relate to Norman Lowell ~_~;;; ) but I like to think of it as being more of a strength than a weakness as it allows debates to manifest.

It is unfortunate that you consider Vivamalta to not be associated with Norman Lowell to a sufficient degree to set it apart. I do not feel that placing a link to the site lays an influence upon Wikipedians' opinions any more than a link to Lowellist or NWM does (which could be considered as being demotive of Norman Lowell's ideologies (the direct opposite of a site promoting his ideologies)).

However I am quite certain that my feedback on this matter are starting to become tiring and shall be backing off for the moment to let the natural flow of time take its course.

Shadow cup 19:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Anti-Semitism???"

Seeing that Lowell is Maltese (and thus Semitic) how can he be "Anti-Semitic?" I've never heard of "Anti-Semitic-Semites!!!" --Carlon 19:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism refers to discrimination against Jews, not against people who speak a Semitic language, although ironically, Lowell does despise the Maltese language due to its Semitic roots. Marcus1234 12:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Norman Lowell is not pro-Maltese at all. He is the type of person anti-immigrant groups in the country need to kick out. The concept of Europe is an anachronism designed to divide Greeks, Muslims, Semitic people, and Latins and preserve platforms for Norman Lowell and Nordicists. The term European disappropriates us Maltese from our Semitic heritage, the Greeks from their Middle Eastern heritage, the Albanians from their Muslim heritage, and the Latins from their cosmopolitan heritage. Our skin darkens readily under the influence of sunlight, we are Mediterranean, not Nordic. Many of us would not pass as white in other European countries (the ancient Greeks and Romans never described themselves as white people because like us they were Mediterranean). Norman Lowell is in his own reality and believes we are Scandinavian or something. He wants to chain us up, bleach our hair blond, lighten our skin with skin lightening products and then put blue contacts in our eyes and call us Aryans!!!! 76.229.234.211 (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Voice of Malta

Norman Lowell may be a racialist, and many other things people do not care for, but he is NOT a Nordicist. I am friends with the man who wrote the introduction to his third book (which will be published in a few weeks), and that introduction specifically calls for marriages and other sexual unions between people from Sweden and Spain (among other examples). A Nordicist would be horrified by the notion of Scandinavian blood being comingled with Iberian blood. I share your antipathy for Nordicism, and would not be such a fervent admirer of Norman Lowell, were he to be an advocate of the ludicrous doctrine of Nordicism. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Normanlowell.jpg

Image:Normanlowell.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent Reversion

I have reverted a recent edit, wherein someone removed a quote from Norman Lowell, which appeared in the publication National Vanguard. I'm unclear why it was initially deleted. Since I see no obvious reason it should have been so, I have reverted the deletion. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Lowell and the Maltese language?

What is Lowell's stance on Maltese? I seem to recall he saw it very negatively, as it is a language related to dreaded Arabic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.100.66.100 (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Why do we have an article on a magalomaniac who garners 84 votes in parliamentary elections? No country has shortage of these - they are dime a dozen. --bonzi (talk) 12:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Natives

"Imperium Europa advocates an all-White Europe, i.e. the forced expulsion of non-whites from the continent. The parlance of the party is to unite "all European natives" (code for white Europeans-only)"

"Code"? I sincerely want to know why a "European native" would not normally be a "white European"? "Native", used in the way implied by the "code" here, has a strange way of being interpreted as anyone born in Europe, whereas anywhere else in the world (Asia, Africa, the Americas, Australia) "native" or "aboriginal" would be defined another way. How come? ElkanahTingley (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Norman Lowell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060928060248/http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2006/06/04/top_story.html to http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2006/06/04/top_story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312082140/http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=3151 to http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=3151
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311202804/http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=2016 to http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=2016

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)