Talk:Pauline Hanson's One Nation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Anti-Islam?

Yes, they support banning the burqa and halal certification, but are they considered Islamophobic? Maybe change it to say ‘criticism of Islam’ rather than anti-Islam as they actually have a female Muslim candidate in New South Wales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.156.55.17 (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Party box

Given that One Nation is no longer a national party, I think its infobox ought to be deleted. Opinions? Adam 06:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, but that would leave it the biggest group of affilated state parties without such a box. matturn 09:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

But the party itself is only registered in two states, IIRC. Slac speak up! 09:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Three if IIRC (and that's what's in the article). It also has branches in other states.

We shouldn't have infoboxes for info which can't exist - One Nation cannot have a leader or a headquarters, because it no longer exists. I would include the party logo as an illustration ("this was One Nation's logo") and delete the rest. Adam 09:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

But it does exist, just not as a federally registered party. It's official status or lack thereof doesn't stop it having a leader, a founding date, a headquaters, a political ideology, international affiliations or a website. A backyard shed organisation can easily have all of these. It might not have a leader at the moment, but then neither does the Greens. matturn 08:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with matturn. The infobox should stay. However, I'm not opposed to PHON being removed from {{Australian political parties}}.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

So who is the federal party's leader and where is its headquarters? In what sense does ON exist as a federal party? Adam 08:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the party Pauline founded was 'Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party', not 'One Nation'. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What difference does that make?--cj | talk 00:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

For most purposes, not much.  :-)

Currently we say:

• One Nation was formed in 1997 by Pauline Hanson, David Oldfield and David Ettridge.

The current party is called One Nation, but the party that was formed in 1997 was Pauline Hanson's One Nation, not One Nation.

So we're not badly wrong. But we're not completely right either.

Regards, Ben Aveling 01:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

True. Fairly commonly known as One Nation, however.--cj | talk 01:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. And always has been. My understanding of the history is:

1. Federal party PHON created
2. Affiliated but distinct State parties ON created
3. Federal party PHON disolved

So currently, unless I've gotten confused somewhere in the turgid details, ON has only State parties. I guess a Federal party will be (re)formed before the next election.

To some extent it's administrivia, but it was neglecting administrivia that sent Pauline inside. I wouldn't want to beat the reader over the head with it, but I think it's worth being precise here.

Regards, Ben Aveling 02:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirection etc

Currently, One Nation Party is the redirector with Pauline Hanson's One Nation being the actual page. Shouldn't it be the other way around, given Pauline Hanson hasn't been a member for some years and actually ran against the party, and in recent elections the party's volunteers tape over the "Pauline Hanson's" bit of the name on their corflutes? Orderinchaos78 16:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Fixing. Slac speak up! 22:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Is "One Nation Party" == Pauline Hanson's One Nation (NSW Division)

Are they one and the same? ie is it right to link an election contestant for Pauline Hanson's One Nation (NSW Division) back to this page as I am doing for the Chifley election 2004? Thanks--Garrie 00:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

They are the same thing, so that should be right. Drett 02:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The title of this article has always been a problem. There was never a body called the "One Nation Party". The correct name of the federal party, which no longer exists, was Pauline Hanson's One Nation. The state divisions had variations on that name. I'm not sure which state parties still exist, but they should probably now be considered seperate parties. Most people will search for "One Nation", but that term has several meanings. I'm inclined to rename this article Pauline Hanson's One Nation to discuss the federal party, and then create new articles for whatever state parties still exist. Adam 03:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Be very careful about this. David Oldfield had a falling out with the rest of One Nation a couple of years ago, and founded a seperate party called, rather confusingly, One Nation NSW (or something along those lines). I'm not sure which this is referring to, but it would be a good idea to check first. As for the broader picture, I think Adam has a sensible idea for this. Rebecca 03:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It was Pauline Hanson's One Nation until May. I agree this article should discuss that entity.--cj | talk 05:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the NSW Parliament website, Oldfield now sits as an independent. There is a One Nation (NSW) website here but as far as I can see it makes no mention of Oldfield. This seems to suggest he has left One Nation altogether (a smart move IMHO). Adam 06:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

He left One Nation, founded One Nation NSW, then left One Nation NSW to sit as an independent in, I believe, early 2005. Rebecca 02:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

One Nation WA in Victoria

Why is One Nation WA endorsing a candidate in Victoria, completely separate to the One Nation Victoria group ticket? matturn 12:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

ONP no longer federally registered?

I have checked footnote no. 4 where is states that ONP lost federal registration - and it leads to a blank AEC webpage.

Furthermore, I did a search on the AEC website and discovered that ON is among the current list of registered Political Parties (as of January 2007). see below:

http://aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/Party_Registration/Registered_parties/index.htm

Please explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Headmess (talk • contribs) 05:35, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

The AEC links were valid when inserted, and they provided evidence for those statements. The federal party was deregistered - I remember reading the AEC media release. I imagine it must have been re-registered some time before the applications closed for the 2007 federal election. Such re-enrolment (and the required reinvigoration) deserves mention of course. matturn 12:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we get confirmation as to whether One Nation is still registered federally? The Fact tag has been sitting in the intro for some time. Did they really re-register themselves? This is vitally important information for the article. Thanks, Lester 21:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

There was a name change in June. That took me, like, three seconds to find. --Pete (talk) 21:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That would seem to suggest that the "One Nation" ballot line in the federal election was in fact the renamed "One Nation (NSW)" split that David Oldfield founded when he was a member of the NSW Legislative Council. As far as I understand, One Nation (WA) is the original party - which would explain Matturn's question below as to why they endorsed candidates on the east coast. Rebecca (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the line in the article that said "ceased to exist", because the FACT tag had been on it for 5 months. Feel free to add alternative sentence with references. Without references, it's confusing for the average reader. The AEC link (above) provided by Skyring (Pete) seems to indicate the party is still registered federally. Cheers, Lester 22:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

United Australia Party

Didnt Pauline Hanson form a new party shortly before the previous election something like United Australia... if so I think it should be noted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdavies 965 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's the same in Queensland. WikiTownsvillian 06:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"Far right"

Please explain!

Is there a basis in reliable sources for this? I'm not sure how helpful a description it is, I would prefer more descriptive categorisations such as "nationalist" and "anti-immigration".  -- Lear's Fool 08:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There are some editors here who consider the Liberals as a party of the extreme right. The description appears to lack a reliable source. My guess is that those sources describing ON as FR are political opinion pieces rather than unbiased and objective. --Pete (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Have a read of Far-right politics and make up your own mind. It will have to be subjective at some level, but given that vanishingly few would place ON to the Left of the Coalition, there's not a lot of choice for the categorisation. Chrismaltby (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not getting into an argument on your opinion. I'm looking for a reliable source. If we can't find one, we'll remove the statement. --Pete (talk) 05:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If it's true but has no cite you can trust... ah never mind :) Timeshift (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't bite the newbies, please. The legitimate question has been asked - where's the source? --Pete (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually think it's a simplistic label but one used on parties that are staunch social conservatives despite being economically nationalist - that said, I haven't said I agree with the term in the article. I think more of the concern is what editors are trying to turn the article in to, rather than removing bias. Timeshift (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I do appreciate your opinion, but we still don't have the source requested. Can you help out? --Pete (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"Both Ms Palin and Ms Hanson have stirred controversy with their far-right politics, while claiming to represent mainstream views."[1] Not that I want to get involved in these petty circular games, but I thought i'd do the five second google just out of interest. As I said, I haven't said I agree with the term in the article. I think more of the concern is what editors are trying to turn the article in to, rather than removing bias. Timeshift (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That doesn't seem to deal with the subject of this article, which is One Nation (Australia), rather than Sarah Palin. Um, you do understand what the OP is asking, don't you?--Pete (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hanson. Grasping at straws there huh? "One Nation, a far-right political party"[2] I know something will be wrong with this ref too, what is it? Will you suddenly depart as you tend to, or will I fail to maintain an interest in this with you? I think both are highly likely. Timeshift (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it looks fine. A minority view, but nevertheless, a source. Thanks. As for Hanson, she hasn't been associated with One Nation since 2003, according to our article. --Pete (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Minority view? Do you have a source for this? As for Hanson "not being associated with One Nation since 2003", I fail to see your point. During her time as party leader was when One Nation had federal parliamentary representation, was at their most outspoken, and received a percentage that was more than negligible. Remember that the source provided above is a modern newspiece, not a Hanson-era newspiece. On the same hand, i'm not sure why we would forget what is One Nation's history. I'm not sure that One Nation has changed since those days, any source? :) Timeshift (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we could create an article for the historical party Pauline Hanson's One Nation? No offence, but trying to equate a party with its leader isn't a good long-term encyclopaedic way of looking at the political world. Lang Labor, perhaps, but is Rudd Labor equivalent to Gillard Labor? Your source represents a minority view because it is only shown to be held by one person, that of the author. An inadequate sample space.

Forgive me. Two people. Obviously you hold this same view, but if we used you as a source we'd be on shakey ground. --Pete (talk) 04:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You asked for a source, you got one. As I said, I haven't said I agree with the term in the article. I think more of the concern is what editors are trying to turn the article in to, rather than removing bias. So... why would we create two different articles for ONP? What significant difference is there? Sounds like you want it both ways to me. What has changed since the ONP was in federal parliament? Can you provide a WP:RS that demonstrates significant ideological/policy differences between the Hanson ONP and the current ONP? Timeshift (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Calm down, please. By showing up the absurdities in an argument does not mean I propose to implement them! You asked why the source represented a minority view and i told you. You yourself don't accept the views of journalists when you disagree with them, so why do you want others to act in a different way? Be reasonable. Now the source you've given is the opinion of one person. We can give it some weight because it is published in a reputable outlet, but all that takes us to is the level at which you yourself discard sources, and I'm hoping you'll find something better. For example, I can find any number of journalists saying in front page articles of metropolitan dailies that Julia Gillard is a disaster and should resign, but you wouldn't agree to their opinions being stated as fact in Wikipedia, now would you? --Pete (talk) 05:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You asked for a WP:RS. I gave one. Then it moved on. The difference is, at no point in this discussion, have you provided any WP:RS. On your second point, saying someone/thing is far-right or far-left, and saying someone is a disaster and should resign, is comparing apples and oranges. On the former, far-left to far-right are many positions, such as left, right, centre-left, centre-right. We use these terms on most party articles here and abroad. The latter, well... lol! As if you'd try to even put up that comparison! Thanks for engaging in discussion with me on your biannual appearance on Wikipedia, it's been fun, but it has run its course. Timeshift (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You provided a source, but one expressed by a minority. We work on a NPOV policy here, and it's really not good enough to justify prominence in the lead, where significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. Following policy, we'll have to delete the statement. You have no objects to following wikipolicy, I take it? I used the Gillard disaster example as something where you would not accept a source, not as a direct comparison to the use of a certain term. If you won't accept a source you don't like, why should anyone else? --Pete (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at other Australian political parties, I find that neither of the two Communist Party of Australia entities are described as left in their articles here, let alone far-left, neither are the Greens given any left/right label at all. In the list here we see labels such as "centre-left" and "Economic left-wing" being used. Interestingly, some parties are described as being both left and right. Turning to Wikipedia's own definition at Far-right politics, the crucial aspect distinguishing far right from centre-right appears to be the characterisation of certain groups (usually based on ethnicity or religion) as inferior rather than merely undesirable. Fascist or neo-Nazi groups are given as examples and listed here - some are charming examples, with members of one Dutch group wearing SS uniforms to rallies. While One Nation was certainly nationalist and anti-immigration, there was never any policy of regarding other groups as inferior or subordinate. I think that to label a party as belonging to a certain area of the political spectrum, we need more than isolated opinions, we need some solid evidence based on party platforms. I would have no problem branding the National Front as far-right, especially given its objective of making Australia "racially pure" (presumably not by removing all non-Aboriginals!) but it seems to me that One Nation fell a long way short of this sort of behaviour. Of course, some on the left will always see conservative parties as far-right, and I believe some active editors enjoy describing the Coalition as fascist, but these opinions carry little weight if we are providing a Neutral Point of View. --Pete (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the term far right was used because Hanson made early statements where she said she didn't represent Aboriginals in her electorate. She was seen as openly racist. The term far right was probably used to separate her from more moderate politicians on the right. Hanson's views were a magnet to her supporters, hence the importance of her beliefs and values to those of the wider party. I will try to find some sources for this and Bjelkemander, which has been prodded. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I found this 1998 article and this 2002 article describing the party as far right, but they aren't Australian sources. In The Rise and Fall of One Nation there are minor references to links with the Confederate Action Party of Australia and the book mentions that Hanson distanced herself from the Australian League of Rights. On page 144, a 1998 Australian Election Study is tabled showing that a mean analysis of public opinion on the party was that it was to the right, but not as far right at the National or Liberal Party. It also revealed a substantial group of those surveyed thought the party was extreme or far right and even far left! My belief is that there is some reluctance of authors and journalists to describe it as far right, because at one stage the party was so popular and because some of their policies which were once seen as extreme, became policies of the Howard Government. It might be better for us to be cautious as well and remove the description of far right, unless a clear and detailed description as such can be found. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The point about Aboriginal Australians made by Pauline Hanson - and one that got her a great deal of traction - was that they should be treated exactly the same as every other Australian citizen. Not as inferiors in any way, which seems to be the major criterion distinguishing right from far right, according to Wikipedia's own article. Of course critics labelled Pauline and her party as racist and far-right, but that's perception and opinion. If we are stating as fact that One Nation is far right, rather than being seen as far right by some, then we need to use some objective benchmarks, such as the party's own stated policy platform. Failing that, is there some respected authority we can use? Antony Green, for example, though he's probably better on elections than ideologies. In any case, the statement in the lede is not mentioned in the body of the article, and as the lede is supposed to be a summary of the whole, that's enough to justify its removal. --Pete (talk) 04:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

B.A. Santamaria a "political commentator"?

I would have thought Santamaria was a right wing extremist, not a "political commentator". How is a party (NCC) leader a political commentator? Besides which his comments were not objective, he was justifying the way One Nation decimated the DLP vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Djapa Owen

What a crock - the DLP vote had been decimated twenty years previously. Agreed that he has no place in this article; he was not merely a political commentator, and certainly not a neutral one. Frickeg (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

please remove USA-flag from the citation needed picture

Wikipedia is for whole mankind! Not USA alone. The "citation needed" picture applies to everybody! So please remove the USA-flag from it and keep it neutral. Wikipedia shall not be a place for USA-propaganda. thank you. 84.128.166.219 (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't find what you're referring to. Could you be more specific? Frickeg (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

IP is talking about the 'citation needed' cartoon above which has a small US flag on the side of the lectern. This is the English version of the cartoon, various others can be found at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Webcomic_xkcd_-_Wikipedian_protester.png, but none in english without the US flag. Please feel free to fix this IP, it is a simple photo edit to create a flag-less version. I certainly have more pressing things to deal with, but I understand your sentiment. Djapa Owen (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Candidate howlers

I've trimmed a bit of the paragraph on the recent "Islam is a country" howler. In the context of the article, too much weight. If someone wants to write a BLP, there's scope for more coverage, but I'm also wondering how truly notable the subject is. On the one hand, world-wide media attention was gained. OTOH, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd got more global coverage when he snacked on his own earwax in Parliament. Maybe it wasn't earwax, maybe it was something else. A bit of doughnut or something maybe. We never did get all the facts on this, did we? --Pete (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I added the section, and considered it notable as it was the first time this fringe party caught the attention of worldwide media and the likes of me. As its most publicity garnering event, I believe a summary is appropriate. However, I do also see what you mean about some of the associated facts (like her legal troubles) being more suited to her personal page, and with her not being very significant, and now out of the running, don't think she justifies a page!Rayman60 (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The BLP was actually just deleted. But I agree with Pete - in the scheme of things it was a small issue and doesn't need to be covered too much. Ideally she'd be mixed in with the general coverage of the 2013 campaign. Frickeg (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Redirect; "One Nation (Australia)" page

In recent circumstances, the "One Nation" party was renamed to it's original "Pauline Hanson's One Nation". Given this, I think the page ought to be redirected to a page with the new title "Pauline Hanson's One Nation" (or something similar), instead of "One Nation (Australia)". Thoughts? 60.224.1.215 (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

This seems sensible, although it would be a move and not a redirect; Pauline Hanson's One Nation would be the appropriate title. Frickeg (talk) 14:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, if it's agreed, I wouldn't be able to do it myself as I'm not a registered member. 60.224.1.215 (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's see if we can get a few more voices first. Given its significance I think this is probably a good idea for a formal requested move, which I'll open below. Frickeg (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 28 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. No objections after over a week. Cúchullain ^t/c 18:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

---

One Nation (Australia) → Pauline Hanson's One Nation – Once again the formal name, and removes the need for parenthetical disambiguation. Frickeg (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Candidates list

Before I revert again - a list of 2016 election candidates does not belong in this article. If it did, the article would be nothing more than a long list of candidates. These candidates are covered at the main candidates page. Frickeg (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• I agree. PHON has been around for several elections. This would be a mess it all of the candidate were listed. Ground Zero | t 11:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Missing the Senate member elected in the 1998 election

There seems to be no mention the senator elected to the federal Senate in 1998 in any of the diagrams or, apparently, the body of the work. --Toomanyaccountsargh (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for adding it to the Senate table in the Electoral performance section. The paragraph explaining that Heather Hill was elected as a senator for Queensland but Len Harris took up the seat appears to have already been there, and they are both in the list of members of parliament further down. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Sue v Hill will provide more background on why Len Harris got the gig TheBustopher (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Election Results Box

Could the results be reorganized by state and then chronologically instead of just chronologically. It would be easier to see the electoral trends that way. Bergmanucsd (talk) 11:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)bergmanucsd

NPOV in Intro

I've removed the following paragraph from the introduction:

The party has a strongly nationalist and conservative platform. Hanson and other party members have denied claims that the party is racist. Hanson says that "criticism is not racism" about her statements on immigration and race. Hanson has also said that she enjoys the company of other ethnicities and welcomes people to Australia wherever their origin, but does not want other cultures to overly influence Australia.

It raises a point of contention (i.e. whether PHON is racist) but repeatedly cites Hanson's opinion on the matter and nobody else's in the introduction of the article despite no such discussion being present in the body, which seems to my reading to be WP:UNDUE, or at least unbalanced. By contrast the wikipedia page for UKIP says the following:

UKIP has faced a critical reception from mainstream political parties, much of the British media, and anti-fascist groups, and has been accused of racism and xenophobia, allegations which it has denied.

Which is more succinct and balanced and doesn't quote any parties. Skimming some news sources I found a few links for criticisms of Hanson along those lines to model it like the above:

The party has been accused of racism by many media figures and politicians, a charge Hanson and her supporters deny.

If any editors want to expand this significantly my vote would be for doing so via a full section in the body that can reasonably quote/paraphrase both for and against without bloating the lead. If anybody does want to do that, the part of Hanson's article linked has a significant section on it, mostly on her comments and policies before her political comeback, and here are a few recent sources they could use as well:

Liberal MP John Alexander says Pauline Hanson's 'abhorrent' racism must be rejected

Pauline Hanson has had it with being called a racist

Bill Shorten says Malcolm Turnbull fuelling Pauline Hanson and helping ISIS

Pauline Hanson making 'discrimination, racism mainstream': Islamic Council of Queensland

Dick Smith to Waleed Aly: ‘You don’t understand basic economics’

I'd also go to these sources or ones from Hanson's page if anybody feels my edit needs more specificity regarding who's made these allegations of racism.

Seggens (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree Apollo The Logician (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• The article is long enough that the lead should only summarise the rest of the article. I can't find racism in the rest of it quickly, so it shouldn't be in the lead either. I support the shorter for of lead, and a section to describe the complexities more fully. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Far Right-2016

The source that was given does not label One Nation as "far-right" so I have removed it. If anyone that has any recent articles that support the use of the phrase, please post bellow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74tyheg2 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Type "One Nation far right" into Google. There are numerous sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.255.31 (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The labels "right"/ "left" no longer serve a useful purpose. From their website: "... Oppose the sale of public assets without the consent of Australians and repeal United Nations treaties that are detrimental or of no benefit to Australia." Opposing sales of public assets, i.e. allowing the possibility to keep them in public hands, is clearly communist - so hard left. Withdrawing from UN treaties that are detrimental or of no benefit to Australia should be a no brainer - it goes against the internationalists who are hard left.

So in the same sentence you have elements of contradictory ideologies. Just like the word "liberal" is derogatory in the US, a label of tolerance in Europe, and in Australia used for conservatives - we need to get away from tags and labels because they are more misleading than useful. I came here to look whether or not One Nation is indeed for withdrawing AUS from the "5 eyes" system, but found nothing here or on their website. Maybe too hot a potato to even think about applying a cost/benefit analysis to the "5 eyes". 2001:8003:A0B9:EF00:6D6F:6FC7:8527:7F04 (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Err, catch up (one of many sites indicating how left/right has evolved over decades to a economic/social left/right 'compass'). The terms 'left' and 'right' are more relevant than ever (particularly due to the increasingly-nuanced eco/soc sliding scales for which the compass is a decent analogue), despite your 'opinion'. One Nation is an excellent example of how the terms 'left' and 'right' have more relevance and meaning than ever, as One Nation's policies are mostly describable as economically left and socially/morally right. I really hope this has updated you on the evolution of left/right - because every now and then, I see/hear federal politicians refer to their politically expedient "demise of left/right" myth to suit their own narrative. I cringe, knowing that they are making those who are less politically adept, ever more so. I'm not advocating re-adding positions to the party infobox however, I just needed to correct this baseless myth - hopefully this post also provides a wee bit of encouragement to daringly think for one's self again. Timeshift (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Far-right to right-wing

Someone has changed far-right to right-wing without changing the source. This party is clearly far-right, so way does it say right-wing? That is not neutral at all. Dnm (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The cited source says "populist right-wing".--Tdl1060 (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no clue as to what the source says. I can not read it. However, populist right-wing does not mean that the party is not far-right. In academic literature far-right parties of to day, like One Nation, Sweden Democrats and so on, are what is called right-wing populists. Right-wing populism is not a political position. It is an ideology. In other words, it appears that the source do not support the position claim Wikipedia are making. Dnm (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Infobox fields for political positions usually do oversimplify matters in a way that can be misleading. I would suggest moving the reference for "Right-wing" to "Right-wing populism" in the ideology field, and leaving the political position field empty.--Tdl1060 (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Leave it empty until a better source?

Political positions are somewhat broad but they are needed in a encyklopedia. Dnm (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

By consensus, the three largest parties in Australia have no political position listed in the infobox, largely because a party's political position is too complex a matter to be summarized in the way that an infobox requires. These complexities can however be covered in detail in the article. I personally have no problem with leaving the article as is. However, right wing is a very broad term, and I do understand your point that right-wing populism is considerably different from other ideologies that could also be termed "right wing". As such, leaving the political position field in the infobox blank is the best option. The readers' need to learn the party's political position can be fulfilled by reading elsewhere in the article and drawing their own conclusions. --Tdl1060 (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Consensus has been that "right-wing" is acceptable, "far-right" is problematic. Generally it seems that those pushing for a far-right description hold views that might best be described by others as far-left, and by themselves as centrist. --Pete (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming that to believe One Nation is far-right means that the believer is therefore far-left? Well, I suppose we shouldn't expect anything less from an editor who as I recall from many years ago self-indicated on wikipedia at the time a certain quite particular WP:COI, though to be ultra-cautious I won't spell out. And we both know we're not talking about a certain COI raised by a certain Fairfax article half a decade ago. Wink wink nudge nudge, hey Pete? We will remember them, while the years ever-more condemn! Timeshift (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

No, the qualifications rule out your assertion. Some of the candidates and members are probably as far-right as they come, but the party platform and leadership seems to distance itself from extreme positions. We see the same thing with the GOP, where the party couldn't be described as far-right, though some of the lunatic Tea Party types are Nazis. --Pete (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I think there is a difference here in that the GOP is a big tent major party, while this is a minor party that is basically built around a single individual.--Jay942942 (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Party colour

With a number of changes occurring to the One Nation colour under Template:Australian politics/party colours, I thought that a discussion should be held to determine the colour used on Wikipedia, given the impending federal election. Personally, I would support   #F36D24. This is the official colour taken from party's logo and is the one commonly used on promotional material such as campaign t-shirts.

In response to concerns regarding similarity to other Australian political party colours, I would say that this is not an issue in One Nation's case. The only other major political party using orange is Centre Alliance, but given their different regional focuses (i.e. SA vs QLD), it would not be fair to say that they are unrecognisable. Similarly, anxiety over similarity to the Democrats is also unfounded, especially considering the fact that that party is no longer registered, and the fact that the two parties were never really prominent in the same time period.

For me, the current brownish colour simply does not scream One Nation; One Nation is one of the bigger players in the Australian political scene at the moment, and it would only be fair that their party be connoted with their own colour. LeoC12 (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I initially made this change because of the Democrats issue. They may not be an issue now, but during One Nation's first heyday 1998-2004, the Democrats were certainly a big deal (two of the three "major minor parties" of the period) and the two are often next to each other in election results tables. I do not care enormously how they are distinguished, as long as they are, and in my opinion #F36D24 is too close to the Democrats' current colour   #F4940D, and I would suggest the Democrats' historical connection to this general shade is much greater than One Nation's more recent switch to orange. I am not at all good with the colour templates, but I went with something browner because brown was routinely used as ON's colour on the ABC and other news outlets for many years. I also note that, as far as I am aware, for most of its history One Nation's colour was yellow, not orange, hence its original association with yellow; although the proliferation of yellow-themed parties in recent years (presumably the reason for ON's change) I think means us moving ON away from yellow is probably a good idea. Frickeg (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I would say that having the One Nation colour briefly clash with the Democrats is a more appropriate outcome in 2019 than having the ON colour shifted beyond the thershld of identification with that party. ON is a current party and they should thus take precedence in my view. The ABC has also used that brown colour as a generic one for other right-leaning minor parties in previous elections (for KAP in the 2017 QLD election and SFF in the 2019 NSW election.) I would note that in both of those examples above, the ABC actually uses orange to refer to ON.

Given how many Australian parties use yellow (see infobox of Australian Senate) or blue (see federal non-parliamentary parties in Political parties in Australia), I don't see how this Democrats/One Nation is so major of an issue that warrants shifting the colour of a relatively major party.

Ultimately, there are a finite number of colours in the world (and thus for parties to use), so I don't think that we should be seeking to make too much of an effort to differentiate party colours unless there is some specific graphical purpose (e.g. in electorate maps).

Who knows - ON may become irrelevant in a decade, but until then, I don't think that their colour should be shifted. --LeoC12 (talk) 11:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit of WP:RECENTISM right there. The 2019 article is not more important than the 1998, 2001 or 2004 articles (or all the various state elections of that period). Like I said, I'm by no means wedded to the brownish orange I went with - I'm not great with the colour templates myself - all I want is two oranges that are more different than these two currently are. If that means shifting the Democrats colour a bit as well, fine by me (although not too much). The "official" shade is something we don't go with as a rule, and hardly any of our colour templates currently use them - we use these colours as identification and to help with readability, and that takes precedence over using the exact colour the party does (also another recentism as they all change the shades every now and then). Think of all the parties that use practically the same shade of red (Labor, KAP, SFF) - we have picked varying and separate shades of red to make sure they are differentiated, and also (and this is crucial) to avoid the implication that they are affiliated. If this was Microparty X and Microparty Y that would matter less, but we are talking about two highly significant parties that co-existed for a significant part of their history. Frickeg (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

That is a good point, I guess that I would just like the ON colour to be somewhat more similar to its current orange. I would suggest something like   #E44E18 that is a bit darker than the Democrats' orange, but not too dark at the same time. --LeoC12 (talk) 03:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Works for me! Frickeg (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@LeoC12: I really hate to do this - it was such a pleasure finding a mutually agreeable solution through consensus after what has seemed like a lot of sturm und drang in OzPol recently - but I was having a look through results for the recent 2019 NSW election and I am a bit concerned about the new colour clashing with Labor's. Here they are together: Labor     One Nation. What do you think? As someone who knows what they're doing with colours a lot more than I do, would you mind tweaking the One Nation orange a bit more? Frickeg (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Far right revisited

I note another attempt to label this party's political position as far right, this time by an anon editor who has only made three edits. I note the provision of sources, but I'm dubious as to whether they are good enough to overcome what is now long standing consensus. I'm still not seeing One Nation as one with the Nazis, though undoubtedly some members goose-step when nobody's watching. One Nation tends to expel their more extreme representatives rather than embracing them, so I think we'd need a bit more discussion before changing this label. --Pete (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree and note this erroneous label is still in the article. I am going to revert back to right-wing, which is what most sources refer to the party as. They expelled Fraser Anning who was a true far-right wing politician in my view. Sportstir (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I too would agree. (There ya go Pete! Promised I would make sure you knew.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why far-right was removed, but the collection of various news and academic sources that label it as far-right remained (and used to justify only 'right-wing'). At the moment, there is one singular source calling it a right-wing party, and significantly more labelling it far-right. It should be noted that 'radical right', the term used by the Oxford Handbook on the Radical Right, is used for a specific type of far-right organisation, but refers to far-right parties nonetheless. I agree that labelling the party purely 'far-right' is bad, as there are a variety of groups within the party, but the prior 'right-wing' to 'far-right' was justified by independent sources. Catiline52 (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I actually hate these constant attempts to rigidly glue every party onto a simple linear spectrum. It doesn't really help explain what parties like One Nation, or The Greens, really are. Nazi parties are right wing. One Nation, from time to time, has some policies similar to those of Nazis, but it's simply not on the same simplistic straight line. HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Disagree Catiline52 although I'm no fan personally of Pauline Hanson as you are obviously not that is not relevant here. Can you please provide reliable sources which directly label One Nation as a far-right wing political party? Sportstir (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

To label ON as far-right, we need not only a solid source saying so, but consensus here. I'm just not seeing far right behaviour in One Nation ranks. The party pushes policies and positions that are aligned with those of Don Trump rather than Adolf Hitler. Nothing I can personally support, but nothing actually illegal. --Pete (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree Pete. Furthermore none of the sources used actually say that ON are currently a far-right political party. There is also no consensus on this talk page to include a far-right description. Sportstir (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

A reply to "an you please provide reliable sources which directly label One Nation as a far-right wing political party?" and "none of the sources used actually say that ON are currently a far-right political party". If you look at the list of references currently labelled '13', all of them label it as such. Both the Al Jazeera and Sydney Morning Herald label the party far-right. The Oxford Handbook, and the other academic source also says that. If you disagree with it being included purely on a consensus sure, and I concede if a majority of the editors want to go that way, but lying about the content of sources is silly. Catiline52 (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

You are correct about the Al Jazeera source Catiline52. Sorry I didn't read it. We should not rely though on an overseas source making such a claim in my opinion. Sportstir (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The Al-Jazeera source isn't terribly useful. The SMH source doesn't say One Nation is far right, and the Oxford book (conveniently available on LibGen) only has one page where the two phrases appear together, in the references section as the title of a paper, the contents of which are not provided. If we had an authoritative Australian political commentator such as Paul Kelly or Laurie Oakes make the statement, that would be useful. The simple fact that journalists of that calibre and experience are not labelling ON as far right is a strong counter argument. "Right wing" is well supported. "Far right" seems to be a matter of opinion and synthesis. --Pete (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

"Anti-Chinese sentiment" hardly an ideology of the party

More a straw man fallacy used by its opponents trying to demonize this party.

46.93.251.82 (talk) 06:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia depends on reliable sources to back up its content. That claim in the Infobox is well sourced to an article in the SMH about a report from the Australia Institute. It appears to be valid, sourced content to me. HiLo48 (talk) 06:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It's accurate but it's not really an ideology, more of a position. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

What are the considerations behind putting 'anti-X' as an ideology? The paper in question states "Anti-Chinese thinking is a persistent sub-text in One Nation’s thinking and policy positions". If it's found to be predominant in the 'thinking', would that be ideological? I'm not sure, it seems that the inclusion of "anti-Islam" which is a similar issue is also a well accepted norm. Catiline52 (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Political Orientation of Pauline Hanson's One Nation

@Jay942942, Bacondrum, Catiline52, HiLo48, Skyring, Sportstir, Helper201, Tdl1060, LeoC12, and MWD115:

Should the party be described as:

• Right-wing
• Right-wing to far-right
• Far-right
• Other ?

PS : far-right is right-wing and there are many cases in which it's a tautology in fact, but it also exists a specific position between centre-right and far-right (ie : Law and Justice, Bharatiya Janata Party, Independent Greeks). Martopa (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think the status quo, Right-wing to far-right is fine and seems well-sourced. It seems to be a fairly typical populist right party nowadays.--Jay942942 (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the Reuters source used for right-wing as it referred to the party's right-wing nationalism and didn't call the party right-wing itself, so that source seemed to break the WP:SYNTH rule. I replaced it with a research paper published on the Parliament of Australia website. As for the party itself and where it stands, I don't hold any firm position as I have little knowledge of the party or of national Australian politics. So as of right now, without more background reading I have no firm position. I disagree with saying far-right and right-wing are the same. There are varying degrees along the political spectrum, from centre-right, to right-wing, to far-right, neither one of the three is the same as another. To say that right-wing is the same as far-right is like saying centre-right is the same as centrist, neither of which are true. The party doesn't seem extreme enough to be regarded as simply far-right, being it’s not neo-Nazi or fascist. Then again, it does have one supporting citation calling it ultranationalist and I could find very little in the way of sources that refer to the party as right-wing. That's my two cents anyway, as far as I have researched the matter thus far. Helper201 (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the source used to call the party ultranationalist, what are other editors views on the source used to the support this, Noosa News? It has no Wikipedia page and I have never heard of the website and have no idea as regards to how reliable it is. What are other editors’ views on this source's reliability? Helper201 (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Helper201, looks we're back at it with the tautology :D Noosa News is News Ltd. I would assume their news reporting is fairly straight. Having said that, one local news story isn't really sufficient for such a claim. And anecdotally, I wouldn't describe them as ultrnationalist and have never seen them described as such before. They're mostly known for being racist (attacking first Aboriginal people, then Asians and today they are mostly focused on vilifying Muslims and supporting men's rights groups) Bacondrum (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Far-right Right-wing to far-right is a tautology, the far-right is right-wing. No evidence has been presented of a dispute in reliable sources, we have strong academic sources including three of Australias leading experts on the topic describing them as far-right explicitly. One news source using the cover-all term is not evidence of a dispute, the weight of sourcing does not favor it either. But regardless, right-wing is not exclusive of the far-right, it's a tautology and no one is saying they are not far-right. Anecdotally as an Australian who has followed Hanson's career from day one and the way her party has been reported on throughout its existence, this is an absurd debate to be having. Bacondrum (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I take serious issue with these "a to b" descriptors where no evidence of dispute about position has been presented. I believe using a tautology like this misrepresents what sources are saying, it looks like an attempt to use the coverall descriptor to soften these kinds of radical parties positions. If a source described them as center-right, populist-right, libertarian-right or some such that would be contesting the far-right descriptor, but a tautology is not a dispute, they are one and the same. So there are three serious issues, it's a tautology, no dispute has been demonstrated, and the sourcing is so weak that it would be giving the claim undue weight. Bacondrum (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Far-right. Far-right and right-wing can be separate, however, the sources that describe the party use far-right and right-wing interchangeably, backing up Bacondrum's claim that (in this case) it's a tautology. The Straits Times (currently cited for 'right-wing') describes the party as 'far-right' on several occassions.[3][4][5] The source that was previously being used to verify right-wing before the reversion, Al Jazeera, also does the same.[6][7][8] Catiline52 (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Far-right and other - there's more than enough sources to support this description, and every source that I've ever come across that I can remember uses at least far-right if not white nationalist. I also think it might be worth looking at supplemental descriptors, particularly xenophobic, anti-immigration, or Islamophobic, to better represent their policies (provided that sources are out there, which I'm sure they are). ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 08:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Right-wing to far-right or Far-right with a note explaining radical/extreme right like at Vox (political party) or National Rally. It is true that there is no real disagreement on the party's political position and that the far-right label is not disputed by the majority of reliable sources, but it should still be distinguished from violent neofascist / neo-Nazi groups such as Antipodean Resistance or Australian Defence League for example. --Martopa (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• A silly attempt at classification I wish Wikipedia would avoid the media's obsession with attempting to place every political organisation on a simple and simplistic straight line. Life and politics are much more complicated than that. Such labelling rarely tells anyone much about a party's real position. We should quote a party's stated position, describe major policies, quote important statements from leaders, then let our own readers decide. Forget this largely meaningless label. (Yes, I have raised this in other places on Wikipedia. My campaign is underway.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Far-right, and I wonder whether this is sufficient to describe the ultra-nationalism and conspiratorial nature of the party (e.g. climate change denial). We describe the British National Party as "fascist", for instance, and I struggle to see what would make One Nation different—not its expressed opposition to immigration, multiculturalism, Asian culture and Muslim people. They use the white nationalist dogwhistle "It's okay to be white", support a Muslim travel ban and oppose housing refugees. See also their links to other white nationalist and fascist groups in Pauline Hanson's One Nation#Race. I would replace "One Nation's policies and platform are widely seen as racist and xenophobic" with a descriptor in the first sentence such as white nationalist ([9][10][11]) ultranationalist or fascist. — Bilorv (talk) 09:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

a far right wing party?

"generally considered as a far right wing party" has just been added and removed from the article. Personally, I consider One Nation far right, and I think most people would? Any objection if I re-add it? Regards, Ben Aveling 06:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

While, yes, it is very much a "far right wing party" such a term is pejorative. "generally considered" is unencylopedic language; keep it defined as Populist, Nationalist and Conservative - which it is. michael ^talk 06:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Populist can be right or left, as can Nationalist. Conservative usually means right wing, but there are radical right wing parties as well. Why is it insulting to call One Nation far right? Given that they are? Regards, Ben Aveling 06:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Right/left can be slapped on any party, and as a descriptor is inaccurate. It's like calling the Greens 'far left'. michael ^talk 07:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think "right" and "left" are hopelessly subjective terms and should be avoided. If someone wrote that the ALP was a left-wing party I (an ALP member) would object and delete it. The ALP is a labour party, not a left-wing party. If One Nation people object to being-called "far right" I think that is a reasonable objection, since "far right" is a term which cannot be defined and an assertion which cannot be verified in any objective way. If you mean "neo-Nazi" or "fascist", then provide some evidence for those labels. One Nation should be objectively classified as far as that is possible. It is (or was) a nationalist, protectionist, anti-immigration, anti-multiculturalist party. Adam 07:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The terms are subjective, but not hopelessly so. The greens are very hard to characterise. They're a mix of far left views on the importance of the planet, with a few far right views on the unimportance of society. The liberals are clearly right wing, though increasingly radical rather than conservative. One Nation is a bit further still to the right. The Nationals are right wing in most ways, but not all; witness the common description of them as agrarian socialists. I don't believe we can still call Labor left wing. While the rank and file are left wing, head-offices are on balance slightly to right of center, when there's any ideology left at all. "neo-Nazi" and "fascist" are clearly far-right wing, but there are other far-rightous groupings, such as the white supremicists, in which I would include One Nation, no? Certainly, it didn't used to be hard to find praise and support for One Nation on their websites. Ben Aveling

You obviously have a mission to fulfill—-why else would you attempt to smear them by referring to them as "white supremacists"? It is accurately described as Adam said earlier: "nationalist, protectionist, anti-immigration [and] anti-multiculturalism". I doubt both supporters and opponents could disagree with such a description. michael ^talk 02:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

While not all One Nation members were white supremacists, a number of prominent members and candidates were - off the top of my head, Andrew Guild, candidate for the seat of Deakin, and Welf Herfurth, candidate for the seat of Riverstone, amongst others. I think "far right" is a fairly accurate description of where they stood on the political spectrum. Drett 18:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just calling it as I see it. I agree that far right is a vague term, but I think it's one that fits. Does anyone think that One Nation is not 'far right'? Regards, Ben Aveling 20:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said before "far-right" is a completely subjective term with no fixed definition. Is protectionism "left" or "right"? These terms should be avoided except in direct quotations. Being as fair-minded as I can, I never heard Hanson say anything that could be called "white supremacist", and I doubt ON's platform or election policies contained any such language. Individual candidates may well have held such views, but this cannot be used to characterise the party as a whole - all parties from time to time nominate candidates with crank views. It is true that ON opposed Asian immigration, but that's not the same as "white supremacism" in the sense the term is usually used. Remember that all parties opposed Asian immigration until the late 1950s. I wouldn't call Menzies or Chifley "white supremacists." Adam 22:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

White supremacy was a mainstream POV umungst white people in Australia until at least the 50's, if rarely with the same murderous ends as some of today's supremacists... I also think "nationalist, protectionist, anti-immigration [and] anti-multiculturalism" is a much better description than "far right". "Right" can't easily be NPOV defined. matturn 09:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That the Mudgee chapter once hosted screenings of footage which included an Australian soldier being beheaded by a Japanese soldier speaks volumes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Ootmotl

The War Memorial has an exhibit devoted to this. More unwritten volumes! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skyring (talk • contribs) 04:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

I suggest you get yourself a grasp on context, Skyring. I used to work as an assistant curator at the AWM and the display does not intend to demonise or dehumanise the Japanese people. Why do you suppose the party believed such footage to be at all relevant to the campaigning of the party? Well then? It is obvious your objective is to disassociate the party from the prejudice at its core. To anyone with a hint of common sense One Nation's Mudgee chapter sought to equate the actions of Japanese Imperial forces with Japanese today which is both ridiculous and fallaciuous, and racist.

Without having intimate knowledge of the event, I can't say what was or was not meant. I certainly don't make the claim that the event "speaks volumes". I suggest that the motives of whoever in the Mudgee branch showed the video clip don't translate into state or federal party policy. Best not to speculate - we're writing an encyclopaedia, not political propaganda. --Pete 14:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

One Nation is right wing, it is not far right. That accusation comes from [far left] critics.

Incidentally the ALP is a left wing party, the Greens are far left and the Liberals are centre-right. These terms do have meaning when used correctly.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

One Nation is not racist. Is far-right/far-left always racist? If it is, then One Nation is centre-right. They side with the Liberal Party of Australia and Katter’s Australian Party, which are both considered centre-right. I don’t think you can put One Nation under the same category as the Nazis though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.156.55.17 (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Split from Liberals?

Though Hanson was briefly a Liberal candidate, I'm not convinced it's correct to say ONP split from the LP. She founded a new party more or less herself which didn't entail a breaking off of other Liberal politicians. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I quite agree. I've removed this from the infobox. Frickeg (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the leader being a former LP candidate does not make it a split. Bacondrum 23:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

GREAT BARRIER REEF PROTECTION

I am using an IP so I can’t edit it. But I’d like to say that they support protecting the Great Barrier Reef — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.156.56.185 (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone wants to see the reef go, it's a natural wonder, priceless. To the QLD government it is worth $56 billion. It supports 64,000 jobs and contributes $6.4 billion to the Australian economy every year. Hanson supporting protecting the Great Barrier Reef is not due as it is not noteworthy, and knowing Hanson her position will change as quickly as the wind changes direction. When it becomes a core policy that they campaign on then we might consider it for inclusion. Bacondrum 22:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Political position, again

@Jay942942, Vacant0, Catiline52, HiLo48, Skyring, Sportstir, Helper201, Thorpewilliam, Canley, and Politically Minded Stoner:

I know that there are discussions above on this matter and that a consensus has been found, but it is not enough and I ask for a new discussion. Very few users participated in the last RFC, with only 4 voting for the far right (nearly a 51-52% majority, unrepresentative with many non-responses); on the contrary, on some other European right-wing populist parties where there were similar issues on parties' position, there are more than 10 votes for only include far-right position (thus excluding any ambiguity). In addition, Bacondrum, who is the main user to want to impose only far-right label (the first time without any consensus), has left Wikipedia permanently, so their vote are null and void.

Yes, there are clearly more sources for far-right, there is no doubt about that. However, the source "Parliament of Australia" to support right-wing label (added by Helper201 and later removed by Bacondrum) seems to have an important weight since it is neither more nor less than an authoritative institutional source, I don't think this should be ignored. Furthermore, even more extreme parties than this one had in the past "right-wing to far right" in infobox (like Alternative for Sweden, Greeks for the Fatherland, National Popular Consciousness) for months or years (most often without any reference for right-wing, until some users noticed the presentation was biased and corrected it). I remain convinced that "right-wing to far-right" is a better compromise (especially since a few users above have even criticized the use of the far-right label - see "Far-right revisited" section -).

PS: there cannot be edit wars and vandalism again, since the page has been indefinitely semi-protected from anonymous IP users and that Bacondrum, who tends to edit in an authoritarian manner (generally, not on this particular article) and involved in edit wars, is now offline. Moreover, RFCs should be used as a last resort per WP:RFCBEFORE, but I had opened the RFC above by default, since Bacondrum would have reverted any edit including "right-wing to far-right" in infobox. --Martopa (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

---

I've worked on Alternative for Sweden's article and I couldn't find any sources for right-wing, that claim was unsourced while far-right was much more sourced so I filled that claim up. I'll compare this case to Fidesz, a party that has been also described as right-wing and far-right but the "far-right" claim has more sources than "right-wing" yet, the right-wing was kept there. These sources should be examined obviously, but I think that in this case of One Nation, the right-wing label is also perfectly sourced and it should be included in the infobox. If we keep right-wing or far-right only it would be unbalanced.

Also, @Martopa: I've started a discussion here and I'd like to implement those changes asap so, I'd appreciate if you can leave a comment there. Thanks, --Vacant0 (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Thank you for starting this discussion. I agree that we should restore the right-wing label with the citation I gave that you mentioned above and any others that can be found that support this, resulting in right-wing to far-right as you suggest. Helper201 (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

This is always a tricky one because these labels are often in the eye of the beholder, i.e. reflecting the writer's personal political views, as well as based on the political complexion of the particular country. What gets regularly described in some quarters as "far left" in the US (the Biden administration) would probably be regarded as centrist, or even centre right, in Australia. In addition, "right-wing" and "far-right" often mean the same thing, depending on context. If we are to accept that the current Liberal government is "centre right" (albeit with a hard right faction pulling it further that way), then I think that ON has to be described as far right. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a confection. We need an actual source. McKenna is authorative and his work is supported by Parliament. There is no dispute that One Nation is a party of the right wing, but to say far right as if it were aligned with the Nazis and the extremists of the political world is going too far. That's kind of like the view in America that the Democrats are communists; an equally skewed view. --Pete (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Anti-vaccination should be added to the list of ideologies

One Nation and Pauline Hanson in particular has taken an increasingly harder line against vaccines amid the COVID pandemic and of course Malcolm Roberts has always been an anti vaxer. I think this should be reflected in the infobox.

Sources: https://www.crikey.com.au/2021/07/28/seven-people-groups-anti-vaxxers-vote-next-election/ https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/one-nations-steve-dickson-pushed-to-oppose-pauline-hanson-on-vaccinations-20170306-gurr2l.html https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/mar/06/pauline-hanson-defends-vaccination-comments-as-personal-opinion https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-01/coronacheck-malcolm-roberts-vaccine-side-effects-yellow-card/100041806

2001:8003:D00A:9A00:E96C:2A75:89C3:C052 (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Anti-vaccination is a policy stance not an ideology. This field should be reserved for actual political doctrines, sets of beliefs, not just a laundry list of policy positions. I would suggest "anti-immigration", "anti-Islam", and "climate change denial" should also be removed. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 07:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree about anti-vaccination and climate change denial. Anti-immigration was the key point of the original platform, so I do think that should stay, and possibly also anti-Islam (which was a big thing in their comeback). The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I point you to the Health Australia Party article that also lists, among other things, anti vaccination in the infobox. Precedence exists not only locally but internationally for including stuff like this, as well as anti immigration, anti Islam and to a lesser extent climate change denial in the infoboxes of parties supporting or endorsing these positions, as it’s simplistic to categorise these things as simple policy positions - they’re global movements (which for the record I don’t support) in their own right.2001:8003:D00A:9A00:E96C:2A75:89C3:C052 (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Just because something happens in the Wikipedia pages of one or even several English-speaking countries does not mean that it should happen in the Wikipedia pages of every English-speaking country, oh anonymous one. There are one or two countries I can think of where the left have completely taken over Wiki, with the result that any chance of fair treatment for all subjects - where they are political - has gone. Thankfully, that isn’t the case here. Note also that the Health Australia Party is all about health issues. Maybe you missed that, although there was a clue in the name. So it is not comparable to One Nation.Boscaswell talk 22:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The Health Australia Party is essentially a single-issue anti-vaccination party - anti-vaccination is to them what anti-immigration views are to One Nation. So the example doesn't apply here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2021

The phrase “a Qatar hit piece” in the subsection titled “James Ashby Scandals” (weird capitalisation, BTW; can't change that?) should be replaced as: ‘a 'hit piece' by the country of Qatar’ (the single-quotation implies that the term should be enclosed with double-quotes). Also, the phrase “documentary series alleging” as: ‘investigation stating to reveal’.( Side-note: For useful-context, the soon-following prose about Ms Hanson's PR-counter to the undercover investigation refers to her statement as “condemned”, which to be frank, lends authoritative tone or credence of sorts, to her public-counter dismissing the revelations which is, needless to spell-out: More-than-necessary for the purposes of sounding "neutral". But nevertheless, I'm not looking to challenge that part directly. Instead, I do think that replacing the tendentious verb “alleging” serves as a suitable-mitigation to the paragraph sounding reverential to the subject's PR relying on familiar tropes of an urban-legend.) Also the first ever-mention of “Al Jazeera” [in the article display-body] right beforehand should have its wikilink redirect to Al Jazeera English, at the very least. If not Al Jazeera Investigates, which is the direct-reference to the investigative-department of the channel which produced this investigation( trivia: syndicated contemporaneously by their Australian peers, Australian Broadcasting Corporation). Like virtually everywhere else on this site, a reference to "Al Jazeera" in any context whatsoever is wikilinked straight to the flagship Standard Arabic-language network but, that's consequently inaccurate. That channel has its own investigative department, unrelated to the investigation under discussion. 103.163.124.73 (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm working through this request. Scandals is now lower case. There were no quotation marks around what Hanson described it as "hit piece", there are now. ~ cygnis insignis 08:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• I was not able to glean which department of Al Jazeera is credited, they refer to 'footage obtained' and an undercover investigator in the cited report. I vaguely recall that how the investigation was initiated was queried, maybe answered. So no change to link. ~ cygnis insignis 08:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for your partial rapprochement, at last. And even though I could help you with the verifiable citations given this site's lopsided pedantry for WP:VNT, however, I would first like to know the precise-factors for ignoring the rest of my suggestions, firstly. Regards, a-gain. —103.163.124.73 (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• I could not easily see anything that elaborated on the "Al Jazeera" link, and not inclined to enter personal negotiations for the supply of "verifiable citations" ~ cygnis insignis 04:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Cygnis insignis: Well.. It's unfortunate that you don't wish to be collaborative for long enough. Next higher-UAL editor, mayhaps? —103.163.124.73 (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• "Asserting" may be a better word in context; "stating to reveal" is too verbose. No opinion on the Al Jazeera link. I don't think there's anything else in there that IP wanted to fix. Whew, that was tiring to read. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Ganbaruby: is that a request? ~ cygnis insignis 12:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• @Ganbaruby: Yeah, do that. Thanks Much. And sorry for making you read anything more in length than mere blurbs. –103.163.124.73 (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Add 1 count to HoR representation

George Christensen has joined PHON. Given he is in HoR, that means PHON now has 1 representative there. Please help update the infobox accordingly. 119.18.1.30 (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

He joined PHON following the dissolution of parliament, I'm not sure if that counts. I'll defer to other more experienced editors though. Catiline52 (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

South Australian legislative council

This is as of current incorrect information. It hasn’t been confirmed that the party has won a seat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D036:5500:64F3:C5AE:E4A:BAC5 (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Ghost candidates

Please put in the article, after the part about Christensen joining One Nation:

Pauline Hanson's One Nation party has been criticised for running "ghost candidates" in several electorates for the 2022 federal election, who are not campaigning in the lead-up to the election and who have no online presence. Additionally, many do not live in the electorates they are listed as being the candidates for. The AEC has said that this is not against the rules. One Nation promised in the lead-up to the election that it would run candidates in all seats.

Thank you. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

References

 Done – see here. Sean Stephens (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Notice

Hi, I would just like to let everyone here know that I'm currently requesting the use of images from the One Nation website on Commons. I will update this section when I get an email back. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Dates inconsistent

Some of the dates for candidates like Mark Latham are inconsistent. Jack Upland (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Dead links

Somebody needs to fix some dead links in this article. I encountered some in the policies section. Thanks. 2.98.183.194 (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

@Auspol4, I've reverted all changes you made to the infobox because I was unable to determine what changes you'd made in total as you did not seek consensus for any of the changes. Please seek consensus here (for the ideology part in particular) prior to making any non-trivial changes. TarnishedPath^talk 13:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The additions of local government area were not made by me but by @Totallynotarandomalt69

No changes made to the ideology section were made by me either, you have misread what i have contributed.

I reverted an edit that was claiming the party was far right instead of right-wing to far right Auspol4 (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I lost track of who was doing what with so many changes being made in a short period of time. TarnishedPath^talk 04:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Excessive detail

In my view the 2016–present: Return to federal politics section contains an excessive amount of detail on minor election results (e.g. by-elections where the party polled 6%), random comments from Hanson (which belong in her personal article), and individual party defections (which are covered by the #Members of parliament section, unless they deserve particular mention like that of Latham). Would anyone object to me thinning this down a little bit? ITBF (talk) 07:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be better broken up by election cycles and other significant events rather than just lumping everything in under a heading "2016–present: Return to federal politics". As far as your suggestion, while I don't see anything wrong with a little bit of thinning per se because as you say some of the material is covered in the Pauline Hanson's One Nation#Members of parliament section, I'd want to make sure that no information is lost. E.g. there is detail on Rod Culleton in the 2016-present section that is not in the Members of parliament section. TarnishedPath^talk 08:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)