Talk:Fraser Anning

Edit Protection

This article has been nominated for semi-protection due to current flood of vandalism. Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Fraser_Anning Tytrox (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Date of birth

Reset his vandalized date of birth from 1991 to 1949.

"Final Solution"

In this sentence,

"His most controversial comment included a reference to a "final solution", a term infamously used by the Nazi Party during preparation and execution of the Holocaust during World War II."

the hyperlink to the Final Solution is within the quoted statement by Anning. Since he was not referring to that historical event, shouldn't the hyperlink to that article be embedded within the words "a term infamously used by"? By placing the hyperlink within the quotations, it falsely gives the impression that he was implicitly referring to some kind of genocidal intent. ADMelnick (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The way it is now is proper. If it was hyperlinked as part of a full quote from Anning then it wouldn't be appropriate, but the only words being quoted are "final solution", which makes it clear he was not explicitly referring to a historic event, and is fairer to him than if he was reported as supporting a final solution without quotation marks. Suggesting it was simply also used by some other people is weaselling it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

As seen in this article by the New York Times showing that his electoral peers understood the dogwhistle he used, as well as considering the history of Anning politically (such as attending an event run by a Neo-Nazi), it requires serious misrepresentation to argue that what he said wasn't dogwhistling. If anything, it should mention that it was recieved as a dogwhistle. DoggySoup (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

article for party

Shouldn't there be an article for his registered party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.108.67 (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you're allowed to make one. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

There should be an article, once there's a registered party. Until then it is WP:TOOSOON. According to AEC Notices the application is still open to public comment until 24 February and has received three objections to the name "Fraser Anning’s Conservative National Party" as being too close to either or both of "Australian Conservatives" and "Australian Nationals"/"The Nationals". I'd say that information about attempting to register a party can be in this article, until such time as a registered party exists. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Christchurch Terrorist Shootings

The article states that Anning "used a Bible passage to call for a Muslim genocide" but the citation given only says that Anning quoted a passage from the Bible in his statement, with no mention of what that passage was or its connection to anything else he said. Nor does it appear anywhere in the linked article that Anning called for a genocide. 203.114.173.104 (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The article now says that he "used a Bible passage to justify the murders" - which again is not supported by the cited article, which says only that "he ended with a passage from the Bible". That passage could have been "love your enemies, do good to those who persecute you" for all we know; the cited article doesn't say. It also quotes him condemning the gunman's actions and saying such acts "can never be justified", which does not look like justifying the murders, from the Bible or anywhere else. Condemn his statements by all means, but at least condemn them accurately. 203.114.173.104 (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If you refer to one of the quoted tweets in the article, you'll find that the passage cited in Anning's statement is Matthew 26:52, "All they that take the sword, shall perish by the sword" followed by Anning's own comment of "those who follow a violent religion that calls on them to murder us, cannot be too surprised when someone takes them at their word and responds in kind". The full statement's text can be found in an image in this article. Alurkinggrue (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to link to the article containing the full statement, then, so it is clear what is being referred to. I was unable to find any tweet/image on the currently cited article which shows that part of Anning's statement, and it is best to cite sources which actually show the relevant content rather than merely provide a further link to it.

Would it not be more accurate to say that Anning "attempted to use the Bible to explain the murders," since the passage cited only refers to violent repercussions for those who are themselves violent? That is clearly not the case with the Christchurch victims. A five-year-old girl cannot sanely be accused of "taking the sword". 203.114.173.104 (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Bio description as "racist"

What are people's thoughts about describing Anning as a "racist" in the opening section? While the term is often used as an emotive pejorative in circumstances in which the claim is arguable (e.g. in the case of John Howard, or Donald Trump), in Anning's case the term is an objective description of his public character. He wants to reintroduce formal racial discrimination in favour of "white" people; he makes criticisms of current policies and approaches on the basis of what he perceives as their detrimental impact on "white" people. In other words, he's a man who sees the world through a racial lens to the point that he considers himself representative of "white" people in some long-running conflict with people who are not white. Anning is the very definition of a "racist" and Wikipedia should describe him thus. The risk of not doing so is that Wikipedia simply presents him as a run-of-the-mill conservative politician with particular views on particular issues. What I'm envisaging is that the opening line reads as follows:

"William Fraser Anning (born 14 October 1949) is an Australian politician and racist who has been a..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.145.176.38 (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.102.24.82 (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

On a political standpoint, he's one of the least important Australian Senators. He gets media attention from his controversial statements. That is what is most notable about him. So the lead should mention something like he "is known to make controversial statements concerning race and religion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by LebanoGranado (talk • contribs) 01:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, do not do this. Anning is a piece of work, but we are meant to be neutral, and we don't describe people as "racist" when they deny the label, especially in the opening sentence. What is there now is fine. Frickeg (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Has he denied the label? HiLo48 (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

New Info: Australian Prime Minster Scott Morrison and Labor leader Bill Shorten have both condemned Anning for hate speech, and parliament might consider impeaching him. At the same time, mass protests have erupted in Melbourne over his comments. 124.181.119.253 (talk) 06:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Why “obviously do not do this”? Wikipedia is made up of facts. “Fraser Anning is a racist” is an incontrovertible statement, made clear by the OP. Wikipedia should not shy away from stating facts that are, well, facts, simply because they are “out there”. Otherwise, what’s the point?

Let’s look at history. Imagine that you are editing Wikipedia in December 1944. By then it is known that Nazi Germany has been carrying out a policy of gassing of hundreds of thousands of Jews (by then the Soviet Army had found the evidence, though maybe not by then the gassing of millions) and you want to put that in the article about Heinrich Himmler. But Heinrich denies it. So someone in the Talk section suggests that we really should only put in that “He is responsible for carrying out controversial measures towards Jews.” Why stop there? Let’s have “Hitler was responsible for some controversial policies with regard to the Netherlands, Belgium, France...” Now all that would be totally absurd, would it not? No less absurd than calling Anning a maker of controversial statements regarding race. Boscaswell talk 09:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I must say, I agree 100%. It's absurd, clear attempts at obfuscation by the extreme right are regularly given a pass, and that leads to Wikipedia unintentionally contributing to deceit by extremists. Bacondrum (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

BLP

I have recently had to revert a series of changes for reasons relating to our policy on material about living people (WP:BLP). The changes added poorly cited or uncited negative claims about the article subject, including the claim (concerning the incident in which Anning was assaulted by a teenager) that "The incident was sparked by Anning's comments on the Christchurch mosque shootings the previous day". In the absence of a reliable source supporting it, such an addition is an unambiguous violation of fundamental policy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator:: nothing to do with WP:BLP, more to do with your own POV. He is calling for Hitler's solution and you wording it as "criticism" and "strong views". How do you classify people who "criticise"? You are not calling him terrorist either: "Anning holds strong anti-immigration views... criticism for some of his remarks on Islam, including his use of the term "final solution" ... criticising Islam following the Christchurch mosque *shootings* in New Zealand.".--هیوا (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

This edit by Adavman, which added the uncited text, "The incident was sparked by Anning's comments on the Christchurch mosque shootings the previous day", is an unambiguous violation of WP:BLP. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

There are also BLP problems in edits like this. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Egging incident needs citation!

The claim "As he was pinned to the ground, several of Anning's supporters choked him, and grabbed his face, while holding him in a headlock." seems to not be supported by either provided citation links. The line seems to be the editor's subjective interpretation of the event. SakariAntti (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC) who is writing this stuff? this section is totally wrong; vic police are also investigating the attacker who committed the assault as well...get this right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.233.214 (talk) 04:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Should be noted that spelling is an issue in this section. Also, the NZherald is one source for the headlock comment, and there's photos of the child having his face held down by one of the five men attending the white supremacist rally that held him down. Further, the boy was released without charge, and government officials are seeking sanctions against Anning, according to comments by the PM et al. the bias in the entire article is why wikipedia is held in low regard for any sort of accuracy ...as if Fraser Anning has any connection at all as to what his ancestors did or didn't do in past history...but the author suggests that it does...pure nonsense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.233.214 (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

there had been a supporting reference since 16 March 2019. The junkee.com citation page has on it a video posted via Twitter by Josh Butler which visually supports the description in the article.Boscaswell talk 06:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

The 17-year-old who egged Fraser Anning is Will Connolly. Ozeggyboy (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 08:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

the 'recieved criticism' intro paragraph getting a little weasely

I reverted an edit that was trying to say Anning has has been criticized as 'calling for violence'. Because as written the sentence implied Anning was actually calling for violence, which was not supportable from the included citation. I think the edit was made in good faith but wording of the second paragraph should be better to make it clear that it is *his critics who say* he 'calls for violence'. And of course we can do better than citing a tweet.

Of course when a reliable source arrives clearly showing Anning calling for violence we can add that sentence .... (which shouldn't be long *sigh*) - Diletante (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Religion?

Given his proclivity to attack one particular religion, it would be of interest to me to know about Anning's own religion. There is nothing in the article on the matter. Anyone know? (With a source, of course.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Found a source myself, and added detail to the article. The SMH says he is a Catholic but not a regular churchgoer. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Neil Erikson

Since we're merging the egg incident article into this article, we ought to include that a fairly notable person is one of the people who tackled the person who threw the egg. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a talk page discussion. Firstly, I don't think we are merging - the consensus in the deletion discussion is leaning delete. In fact, I think the recent additions have made it undue weight in this article. Anyway, Neil Erikson is not notable - at least, he doesn't have a Wikipedia article. That's the main reason not to mention him.

He has a subsection in an article, and it is very common to link words to subsections of articles. United Patriots Front#Neil Erikson. I think it's clear the outcome of the discussion is to merge. After all it could potentially become an article again if there is a court case. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

He is not notable according to wikipedia standards. And WP:BLP says "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." StAnselm (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

He's been convicted of numerous offences, it'll take you all of three seconds on google search to confirm this. Bacondrum (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

We don't have to say he is accused, it's just that he was involved in the incident. This is someone with a significant criminal record that is documented on Wikipedia. You haven't given any reason why he is "not notable", but he is notable enough that this is significant enough for the reliable sources to have named him. I would urge looking into United Patriots Front. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with StAnselm. He is not notable because that is what Wikipedia policy tells us Onetwothreeip. You trying to include this is also breaching our policy on undue weight. Merphee (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

He is "fairly notable", we have a subsection about him and there is no reason that we couldn't have an article about him. Nobody has given any reason for why he isn't notable. He doesn't have to be notable for us to mention him either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to be strictly adhering to policy on this. How is it notable enough to be including? How is it relevant including him in another person's bio? Merphee (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It's notable because he is a founding member of a notable organisation, one seen as holding extreme views somewhat aligned with those of Anning himself. That Anning's support comes that that part of society is important. And that's how it should be mentioned, with a link to United Patriots Front. HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

They also provide security for the senator, that's why they were involved in the eggboy incident. Bacondrum (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Many news organisations are reporting Neil Erikson's involvement. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

But we are not a news organisation. The question is whether this belongs in an article about someone else. StAnselm (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, because it shows the link between Anning and the UPF. HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

You are correct HiLo, seems blindingly obvious to me. Bacondrum (talk) 05:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I never said we are a news organisation. This is an encyclopaedia, and the involvement of Neil Erikson is encyclopaedic information because of his notability and the notability of the United Patriots Front. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

If the name is to be included, it should definitely be as a blue link. Redirects can also go to sections, but the section of the UPF article about him should really be removed for violations of WP:BLP, or cited far better than it currently is (two citations, at the end of the third paragraph only). The current second paragraph in particular has BLP concerns for me. Is this incident really worth a quarter of Fraser Anning's entire political career? I think it should be no more than a sentence on the end of the paragraph about his reaction to the Christchurch shootings. If he has a long relationship with the UPF, then that could be included (with appropriate citations) elsewhere in the article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

WTF??? Two citations, count again, there's eleven. Bacondrum (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, the article has improved since that comment. If you think Erikson is independently notable, feel free to create his article. Yet it would still need to be demonstrated that his attendance at this event is worth including in this article. Julie Bishop once attended a lecture given by George C. Lodge.[1] But we don't include that in Lodge's article. StAnselm (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, Julie Bishop once attended a lecture given by George C. Lodge, but she wasn't the head of security and she didn't beat up a minor...ridiculous comparison, desperate even Bacondrum (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the Erikson section of the UPF article has been improved to provide more references. My BLP concerns there are allayed.

Back to this article, of the three references next to his name at present, only one mentions Erikson, and that only says he was controlling access to the building. Evidently he wasn't doing his job very well! --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC) There was eleven references when you made this comment, I just checked the edit history. Can we try to conceal our bias a bit better? Bacondrum (talk) 05:27, 25 March 2019

No, Bacondrum, you're wrong. StAnselm (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair cop, I was wrong. Still doesn't change the facts around Erikson and Anning and it doesn't delete the tidal wave of reporting around their connection. Bacondrum (talk) 07:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip is 100% correct, Erikson is notable (I wish he wasn't, but he is), he is one of the leaders of the extreme-right in Australia. How many news articles about him are needed for him to qualify as notable, these results from a five second google search...come on now:

The Guardian:

• https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jan/15/anti-islam-activist-neil-erikson-admits-he-breached-court-orders
• https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/may/11/sam-dastyaris-far-right-abuser-gets-suspended-fine-for-contempt
• https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/feb/15/sam-dastyaris-far-right-abuser-guilty-of-contempt-over-footage
• https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/sep/05/united-patriots-front-trio-say-beheading-stunt-during-bendigo-mosque-protest-an-act-of-free-speech
• https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jan/04/a-current-affair-accused-of-inciting-violence-in-melbourne-race-war-story
• https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/04/hundreds-of-police-to-patrol-st-kilda-beach-as-far-right-extremists-rally
• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/07/st-kilda-rally-a-fascist-movement-can-only-be-kept-small-if-we-call-it-by-its-name
• https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/mar/21/fraser-anning-admits-he-knew-he-was-striking-a-child-over-egging

The Age:

• https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/you-re-talking-rubbish-judge-tells-far-right-activist-neil-erikson-20180313-p4z445.html
• https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/why-is-victoria-the-far-right-protest-capital-of-australia-20190106-p50pue.html
• https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/clashes-tipped-between-invasion-day-protesters-and-far-right-groups-20190124-p50tfm.html

Sydney Morning Herald:

• https://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-s-far-right-moves-to-shadowy-messaging-service-amid-crackdown-on-digital-giants-20190320-p515tw.html?js-chunk-not-found-refresh=true

The ABC:

• https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-11/far-right-activist-neil-erikson-sentenced-over-contempt-of-court/9750750
• https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-13/neil-erikson-childish-court-wears-toll-vest/9542114
• https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-15/neil-erikson-in-contempt-of-court-toll-uniform/9449428

SBS:

• https://www.sbs.com.au/news/racism-does-not-make-any-of-us-safer-police-on-melbourne-beach-altercation

News.com:

• https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/news/men-who-held-down-egg-boy-made-horrendous-comments-after-nz-attack/news-story/fd22b1b92f22894718cf2e4e70147dac

Bloomberg:

• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-16/australian-senator-punches-teenager-after-being-egged-in-head

The Financial Review:

• https://www.afr.com/news/policy/foreign-affairs/redneck-to-murderer-rise-of-far-right-new-challenge-for-australia-20190318-p5151r

The Australian:

• https://www.theaustralian.com.au/video/id-5348771529001-5565907485001/farright-activist-storms-melbourne-council-hours-after-being-convicted-of-hate-speech-credit-neil-erikson-via-storyful

There's tones more, but I can't be bothered copying anymore URL's...I think the point has been thoroughly demonstrated. Bacondrum (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

So write Neil Erikson. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

So, read the guidelines around red links, and if you have time write it yourself...you've no grounds to demand I write it, and it's absolutely fine to have red links, millions of notable people don't have pages. Bacondrum (talk) 04:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Stuff it, I did it anyway, you're welcome. Bacondrum (talk) 04:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

On what planet is it not noteworthy that a federal parliamentarian has convicted criminals and neo-Nazi's working his security...and that those same criminal neo-nazi restrained a minor in a massively disproportionate use of force? You lot didn't noticed the three days of front page local and international news coverage? This debate is beyond tedious. Bacondrum (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@StAnselm: It's clear consensus is for including Neil Erikson in the article. I ask you to revert back the edit you made, I think that would be proper. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Articles I was able to find within a very quick google search that considered it worth including Erikson by name in relation to incidents involving Anning:

• https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/mar/21/fraser-anning-admits-he-knew-he-was-striking-a-child-over-egging
• https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/fraser-anning-lashes-out-after-he-was-egged-by-teenager-20190316-p514ss.html
• https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-16/fraser-anning-egged-in-melbourne-while-speaking-to-media/10908650
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-16/australian-senator-punches-teenager-after-being-egged-in-head
• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/egg-boy-neil-erikson-criminal-sword-church-fraser-anning-church-far-right-australia-a8831681.html
• https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/politics/politician-lashes-out-at-muslims-after-christchurch-shootings-they-are-the-perpetrators/news-story/8e3f11fe73821dc3e65d75432ac76f2e
• https://www.sbs.com.au/news/senator-anning-says-he-s-keen-for-more-right-wing-rallies
• https://www.sbs.com.au/news/ship-them-home-fraser-anning-says-he-wants-ban-on-muslim-sudanese-migrants
• https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/world/384879/queensland-senator-fraser-anning-egged-day-after-disgusting-remarks-about-christchurch-terror-attacks
• https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/egg-boy-fraser-anning-australia-christ-church_n_5c8d7a01e4b03e83bdc1ac97

Lets put this silly debate to bed...if it's not noteworthy that a prominent Nazi and criminal was providing security, and that as part of that security job said Nazi and his mates punched, choked and kicked a minor at one of Anning's press conferences then what the hell is? Gah!! Bacondrum (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Cultural marxism

I have removed this material again - it is my third revert, but for the record I claim a BLP exemption if people are worried about edit warring. We cannot say Anning referred to, let alone "espoused", a conspiracy theory without a reliable source. All we have is the primary source - and Anning may well have used the phrase without knowing its meaning, history, or connotations (and I think he probably did). So as it stands we have a BLP violation. I take Bacondrum's point that you can't criticise something that doesn't exist, so perhaps we could have Anning criticised what he called "cultural Marxism". Otherwise we can leave it out. After all, it did not receive much coverage at the time, since people were focused on the "final solution" phrase. (As a side note, he did not refer to the final solution either.) StAnselm (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Claim what you want, you are edit warring, and two editors have contested your edits, not just me. Revert again and I'll report you, you've already violated the three revert rule, so I'm actually assuming good faith beyond what is expected and being patient with you by not having already reported you. Bacondrum (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a verbatim quote from the subject: "Thus, to describe the so-called 'safe schools' and 'gender fluidity' garbage being peddled in schools as 'cultural Marxism' is not a throwaway line but a literal truth." cultural Marxism has only one meaning. This was Anning's maiden speech to the federal parliament, you don't think he knew exactly what he was saying? You have no argument. I suppose he just happened to make a number of references to other well known Nazi and neo-Nazi terms like "The final solution to the immigration problem is, of course, a popular vote." These are verbatim quotes from the subject, recorded in the federal Australian Hansard, they are extreme comments, reported widely and absolutely require mentioning. You have absolutely no grounds to remove them, and no excuse for edit warring. Bacondrum (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I suggest your problem seems to be with what Wikipedia knows "Cultural Marxism" to be. In contemporary usage, the term Cultural Marxism refers to an anti-semitic conspiracy theory which claims that the Frankfurt School is part of a continual academic and intellectual effort to undermine and destroy Western culture. According to the conspiracy theory, which emerged in the late 1990s, the Frankfurt School and other Marxist theorists were part of a conspiracy to attack Western society by undermining traditionalist conservatism using the 1960s counterculture, multiculturalism, progressive politics and political correctness. How are we supposed to check if he knew what he said before he said it? Let's pretend we don't know anything about Fraser Anning, why would we assume he doesn't know what something is if he said it? Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

We don't assume either way. That's why a primary source is not enough. It's enough to say that he used the phrase, but not enough to say that he was referring to a conspiracy theory (at least, not the one involving the Frankfurt School). StAnselm (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Referring to Cultural Marxism is literally the same as referring to a conspiracy theory that originated regarding the Frankfurt School. It is as much like referring to if somebody said "I met with the prime minister of Australia today" that they met with Scott Morrison. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Indeed, this whole thing seems like a daft argument to me, like Anning just bumbles through life accidentally referring to Nazi stuff, like he has Tourettes or something. LOL. Not plausible. Bacondrum (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@StAnselm: Ill accept that we can't say he "espoused" the cultural Marxist conspiracy theory without a reliable source. But he referred to it and you can't deny it (no matter how much as you may want to) it's on the public record, literally - it is in the federal Hansard. Also, he did refer to "The final solution", using those exact words and again, it's in the Hansard, you can go read it whenever you want. Please do tell, what is the other context for Cultural Marxism, if you can point that out you might have a case. You are banging on about the primary source as though it's not valid, but it is and you know it is. In my opinion your bias is hanging out. Bacondrum (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@StAnselm:As it stands you have no consensus, so don't remove it again.Bacondrum (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you're beating a dead horse at this point. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, the horse is dead. Is Hansard actually a primary source anyway? Anning doesn't write his own Hansard entry Bacondrum (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Obviously Anning's final solution is not the same as Hitler's. Th fact that he used the phrase does not mean he's referring to the thing. StAnselm (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

•  Administrator note I have removed the contentious material, which seems to synthesize criticism of the subject based on primary sources and wikipedia's article on cultural marxism, per WP:BLPREMOVE. Do not restore the material without first establishing consensus for its inclusion and the proper sourcing. I will be posting a request on WP:BLPN for further input. Abecedare (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

How about this, with primary and secondary sources:

On 14 August 2018 Anning delivered his maiden speech to the Senate. In it, he called for a plebiscite to reintroduce the White Australia Policy, especially with regard to excluding Muslims. Anning's maiden speech also referred to the final solution and the antisemitic conspiracy theory of cultural Marxism, he went on to criticise the Safe Schools Coalition Australia as "gender fluidity garbage" and condemned what he described as the abuse of the external affairs power of the Australian constitution. He also spoke in support of the right of civilians to own firearms, and the Bradfield Scheme irrigation proposal. Bacondrum (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Can still be improved but certainly better than nothing, and not at all defamatory. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

No, because none of the references mention a conspiracy theory. StAnselm (talk) 01:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

So we will just add the references that call it a conspiracy theory then. Otherwise we would be saying that he is against something that actually exists, and thereby saying that this conspiracy theory is a real thing. We can't assume that everybody who reads this article will know what the term is about. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

No, we would need a reference saying 'he' was referring to the conspiracy theory. Otherwise it's improper synthesis. StAnselm (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

It is a conspiracy theory though, so he referred to a conspiracy theory. Wikipedia is not censored. That it is a conspiracy theory is extremely important to how we report this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

No, the phrase is not the theory. StAnselm (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

References

It's the name of the conspiracy theory, it's not a phrase or anything else. It's an antisemetic conspiracy theory. You hide behind rules to present Fascists in the most favourable possible light...Christians do their faith a disservice when they get in bed with the far right. Jesus rejected this kind of barbarism. Bacondrum (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes. Wikipedia rules require us to present everyone in the best possible light. StAnselm (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

That's absurdly false. We present people objectively and neutrally. Show us these rules you talk about. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought Wikipedia was about encyclopedic content, not presenting the subjects in the most favorable light, how's that any better than presenting them in the worst light? Bacondrum (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, by that I mean we should be fair, disinterested, and conservative. StAnselm (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see a BLP concern; Anning has said: "If people want to take it out of context that’s entirely up to them. It was never meant to denigrate the Jewish community and it’s two words and if that offends anyone unfortunately that’s the way it has to be." [2] If linking "Cultural Marxism" to the Frankfurt article is not a BLP violation, then calling the theory anti-Semitic isn't either (Fwiw I don't like the cited WP:FRINGE sources that it is anti-Semitic). I, however, have a problem with the "gender fluidity garbage" wording. It's one thing to say that he believes that schools should teach 2 genders and 2 genders only, but another to say that he considers a student program "garbage". wumbolo ^^^ 19:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

No, the two words referred to there were "final solution". StAnselm (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

"gender fluidity garbage" is a verbatim quote. as is "cultural Marxism" and "the final solution". I can't really make sense of what you are saying here.

So, explain how "Cultural Marxism" and "the final solution" can be interpreted as anything other than what they are, if I was to say Anning is a man, I wouldn't need a source, because it's patently obvious that he is a man. To say "cultural Marxism" is an antisemitic conspiracy is the same, there is no other meanings to that combinations words, if there is, please enlighten me...it is what it is, and it is an antisemitic conspiracy theory, nothing else...If I said the same about the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, I wouldn't need a citation showing that the protocols are an antisemitic conspiracy theory because that's what it is 100%, it's the only context it is ever used in. Same with the "final solution", would a reasobnable person assume anything but a reference to the holocaust? Would a reasonable person assume either of these wording meant anything other than exactly what was meant? This is a stupid argument Bacondrum (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing anti-Semitic, for example, in the way Ioan Davies uses it.[3] StAnselm (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Who? The opinion of some obscure person is not a reflection of how a reasonable person with any knowledge of the subject would interpret it. Bacondrum (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Did you read the article? Davies is a recognised scholar on the topic known as "cultural Marxism". StAnselm (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't, just couldn't find anything about the author on line. And now that I have read it (It's actually very interesting), I can see that you're correct. I still believe Anning meant it in the antisemitic conspiracy sense, but what I think is irrelevant. Bacondrum (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! StAnselm (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Another proposal

So, I hear what you're saying @StAnselm:, sorry for being belligerent with you (again). I reckon that there is a need to mention the cultural Marxism remarks - especially seeing as the words "The final solution" also appeared in the same speech - I think we can all agree that most fair minded people would, at the every least, concede that these phrases are loaded and could be perceived as profoundly racist (as myself and others have perceived them), even if racist dog-whistling was or wasn't Anning's intention, the phrases are still loaded with deeply offensive connotations. How about this for a compromise:

On 14 August 2018 Anning delivered his maiden speech to the Senate. In it, he called for a plebiscite to reintroduce the White Australia Policy, especially with regard to excluding Muslims. Anning went on to criticise the Safe Schools Coalition Australia as "gender fluidity garbage" and condemned what he described as the abuse of the external affairs power of the Australian constitution. He also spoke in support of the right of civilians to own firearms, and the Bradfield Scheme irrigation proposal.

His speech included a reference to a "final solution", the English equivalent of the term used by the Nazi Party during preparation and execution of the Holocaust during World War II. Anning went on to criticise what he called "cultural Marxism" in regards to the Safe Schools Coalition Australia, the term cultural Marxism is associated with a popular antisemitic conspiracy theory. Anning has stated his comments were taken out of context, saying that he had used the phrase to introduce the last of six policies he proposed about immigration. His comments received condemnation from across parliament, including the Labor Party, the Liberals, the Nationals, the Greens, One Nation and the Centre Alliance, among other crossbenchers in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. He has refused to apologise for his comments. Pauline Hanson said she was appalled by Anning's comments and described them as "straight from Goebbels' handbook". However, Anning's party leader Bob Katter described it as "a magnificent speech, solid gold" and said he "1000 percent supports" Anning. In October of the same year, Katter expelled Anning.

Or some variant on that? Informs the reader of the phrases use and history, but does not suggest Anning intended it in a conspiratorial sense, just that he used the phrase. Bacondrum (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

This leaves it open to the interpretation that Anning meant Cultural Marxism in some way other than the conspiracy theory. If that was added into the article, I would alter it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Apology accepted. And I like how you're being careful not to wikilink the phrase the first time. I still think this would fail WP:SYNTH. And it doesn't fit well with the rest of the section, which has already explained the terms under which he criticised the Safe Schools Coalition. I would rather go back to my initial compromise of having "criticised what he called 'cultural Marxism'" in the initial list. StAnselm (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I still can't find any reliable sources which criticise Anning's use of the phrase "cultural Marxism" in his maiden speech. All I see is a piece in the Guardian that says, "Despite his and Bob Katter’s posture of holding up to an imaginary cultural Marxism..." StAnselm (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Regarding the "cultural marxism" allegations, I think I may very well have found a more reliable source that states the full text of his maiden speech to the Australian legislature, with said reference of "cultural marxist ideology" present within. Perhaps this should be more reliable than a Guardian opinion piece?

Reference: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/full-text-senator-fraser-anning-s-maiden-speech Adrian Fey (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

But obviously it doesn't criticise Anning's use of the phrase; it only establishes that he used the phrase. StAnselm (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: The cardinal point is that he did use the phrase to promote said conspiracy theory, and was very open about it as a matter of fact, as evidenced by his social media statuses he posted in the months following the speech (Unrelated to this exact instance though so I won't elaborate), and whether or not he was criticized for it does not change anything about the fact that he did invoke the antisemitic canard of "judeo-Bolshevism" disguised under the veneer of "cultural marxism", he did present it in his maiden speech to the Australian legislature, and ergo, it is not libelous to insert said instance into his biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Fey (talk • contribs) 02:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with StAnselm's comment "the phrase is not the theory" here. The phrase "cultural Marxism" is used frequently by mainstream right-wing media sources in Australia – googling "cultural marxism"+site:theaustralian.com.au brings up five pages of results. Whatever the origins of the term, it seems to be used quite often shorthand for left-wing social policy. It's quite possible that Anning does subscribe to the conspiracy theory behind it, but I think it's too big a leap for us to say that he does so based only on him mentioning the term. It would be different if we had sources criticising him for doing so. I don't think the fact that he mentioned it should be omitted entirely, but Wikipedia shouldn't be a first-mover on things that are potentially defamatory; i.e. it shouldn't be in Wikipedia's voice. It would be like going to every Republican who has criticised George Soros and saying they subscribe to the anti-semitic George Soros conspiracy theory – it may be true, but where there's plausible deniability we should err on the side of caution. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

George Soros is very much a real person though, he is not a conspiracy theory. Cultural Marxism is, and it's still a conspiracy theory when someone uses it in The Australian. The Australian has also published articles disputing climate change, but we don't pretend to assume that they are talking about something else just because it's a mainstream newspaper. I think detailing the antisemitic nature of the Cultural Marxism theory may not be necessary here, unless it's regarding the "final solution" comment, but certainly it should be outlined here that it is a conspiracy theory. We can't just let readers assume Anning is criticising something that exists. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

StAnselm's BLP argument

@StAnselm: we really need to know what exactly of WP:BLP you are talking about. As far as I see it, there is no risk of damage to saying Anning has referenced a conspiracy theory or an antisemitic idea. It is not saying that Anning is antisemitic, which may risk damage. Before you may dispute what I have said, please tell us exactly what part of WP:BLP you feel contravenes the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

BLP policy is not just concerned about damage (poorly sourced contentious material of a positive nature must be removed as well) but in this case there is an implication that Anning is buying into the conspiracy theory. StAnselm (talk) 07:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, what part of WP:BLP are you referring to? I am assuming good faith but otherwise it's just WP:CRYBLP if there is nothing specific. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

From the lead section: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." StAnselm (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

And then: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: (1) is unsourced or poorly sourced; (2) is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No original research)." StAnselm (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

What is contentious here then? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

In the context of the policy, it's anything that has been challenged or could be challenged. In this case, it's the claim that anyone who uses the phrase is necessarily referring to the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. StAnselm (talk) 09:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Except that "cultural marxism" is a conspiracy theory usually propagated to smear common bete noires of the extreme right such as homosexuals, people of color, social democrats, communists, liberals, and progressives alike, and has it's origins rooted deep within Joseph Goebbels's infamous "Judeo-Bolshevism" canard. There is a reason why "cultural marxism" doesn't have it's own encyclopedic entry and it is placed as a conspiracy theory in the "criticism" section of the Frankfurt School, as there is virtually zilch evidence that the whole philosophical theory of "cultural marxism" exists, nor was it proven in any way it is a organized attempt in trying to destroy western civilization or traditional values. Here I directly quote with references added down below:

Extended content

"In contemporary usage, the term Cultural Marxism refers to an antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims that the Frankfurt School is part of a continual academic and intellectual effort to undermine and destroy Western culture. According to the conspiracy theory, which emerged in the late 1990s, the Frankfurt School and other Marxist theorists were part of a conspiracy to attack Western society by undermining traditionalist conservatism using the 1960s counterculture, multiculturalism, progressive politics and political correctness. This conspiracy theory is associated with American religious paleoconservatives such as William S. Lind, Pat Buchanan, and Paul Weyrich; but also holds currency among the alt-right, white nationalist groups, and the neo-reactionary movement. Weyrich first laid out the conspiracy theory in a 1998 speech to the Civitas Institute's Conservative Leadership Conference, later repeating it in his widely syndicated "culture war letter". At Weyrich's request, William S. Lind wrote a short history of his conception of Cultural Marxism for the Free Congress Foundation; in it Lind identifies the presence of openly gay people on television as proof of Cultural Marxist control over the mass media and claims that Herbert Marcuse considered a coalition of "blacks, students, feminist women, and homosexuals" as a vanguard of cultural revolution. A year later, Lind began writing Victoria: A Novel of 4th Generation Warfare (published in 2014) about a societal apocalypse in which Cultural Marxism deposed traditionalist conservatism as the culture of the Western world; ultimately, a Christian military victory re-establishes traditionalist socio-economic order using the Victorian morality of Britain in the late 19th century. The anti–Marxism of Lind and Weyrich advocates political confrontation and intellectual opposition to Cultural Marxism with "a vibrant cultural conservatism" composed of "retro-culture fashions", a return to railroads as public transport, and an agrarian culture of self-reliance, modeled after that of the Amish. In the Dialectic of Counter-Enlightenment: The Frankfurt School as Scapegoat of the Lunatic Fringe (2011), the historian Martin Jay said that Lind's documentary of conservative counter-culture, Political Correctness: The Frankfurt School (1999), was effective propaganda, because it: ... spawned a number of condensed textual versions, which were reproduced on a number of radical, right-wing sites. These, in turn, led to a welter of new videos, now available on YouTube, which feature an odd cast of pseudo-experts regurgitating exactly the same line. The message is numbingly simplistic: “All the ills of modern American culture, from feminism, affirmative action, sexual liberation and gay rights to the decay of traditional education, and even environmentalism, are ultimately attributable to the insidious [intellectual] influence of the members of the Institute for Social Research who came to America in the 1930s.” Heidi Beirich likewise holds that the conspiracy theory is used to demonize various conservative "bêtes noires" including "feminists, homosexuals, secular humanists, multiculturalists, sex educators, environmentalists, immigrants, and black nationalists". According to Chip Berlet, who specializes in the study of far-right movements, the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory found a place within the Tea Party movement of 2009, with contributions published in the American Thinker and WorldNetDaily highlighted by some Tea Party websites. The Southern Poverty Law Center has reported that William S. Lind in 2002 gave a speech at a Holocaust denial conference on the topic of Cultural Marxism. In this speech Lind noted that all the members of The Frankfurt School were "to a man, Jewish", but it is reported that Lind claims not to question whether the Holocaust occurred and suggests he was present in an official capacity for the Free Congress Foundation "to work with a wide variety of groups on an issue-by-issue basis". Although the theory became more widespread in the late 1990s and through the 2000s, the modern iteration of the theory originated in Michael Minnicino's 1992 essay "New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and 'Political Correctness'", published in Fidelio Magazine by the Schiller Institute. The Schiller Institute, a branch of the LaRouche movement, further promoted the idea in 1994. The Minnicino article charges that the Frankfurt School promoted Modernism in the arts as a form of cultural pessimism and shaped the counterculture of the 1960s (such as the British pop band The Beatles) after the Wandervogel movements of the Ascona commune. According to Samuel Moyn, the fear of "cultural Marxism” is originally "an American contribution to the phantasmagoria of the alt-right", while the theory is "a crude slander, referring to something that does not exist". More recently, the Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik included the term in his document "2083: A European Declaration of Independence", which—along with The Free Congress Foundation's Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology—was e-mailed to 1,003 addresses approximately 90 minutes before the 2011 bomb blast in Oslo for which Breivik was responsible. Segments of William S. Lind's writings on Cultural Marxism have been found within Breivik's manifesto." In July 2017, Rich Higgins was removed by US National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster from the United States National Security Council following the discovery of a seven-page memorandum he had authored, describing a conspiracy theory concerning a plot to destroy the presidency of Donald Trump by Cultural Marxists, as well as Islamists, globalists, bankers, the media, and members of the Republican and Democratic parties. In July 2018, the Twitter account of Ron Paul posted and then deleted a cartoon about Cultural Marxism which depicted racial stereotypes. Paul later claimed that he had not posted it personally. In "The Origins of Political Correctness" (2000), William S. Lind established the ideologic lineage of Cultural Marxism; that: "If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the Hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I [to Kulturbolshewismus]. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with [the basic tenets of] classical Marxism, the parallels are very obvious." Such an historical lineage demonstrated that the ideology of "The Alt-right’s Favorite Meme is 100 Years Old" (2018), in which Samuel Moyn reported that fear of Cultural Marxism is "an American contribution to the phantasmagoria of the alt-right"; while the conspiracy theory, itself, is "a crude slander, referring to Judeo-Bolshevism, something that does not exist". Philosopher and political science lecturer Jérôme Jamin has stated that "[n]ext to the global dimension of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, there is its innovative and original dimension, which lets its authors avoid racist discourses and pretend to be defenders of democracy"."

Adrian Fey (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The text you have quoted is vague in regards to the anti-Semitic connection and does not account for"British Cultural Marxism". In any case, to avoid improper synthesis we would need a reliable source addressing Anning's use of the phrase. StAnselm (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Which is why you always consult said references that are present within the quote and read each source individually, as Wikipedia only provides a overview and isn't supposed to be news. Read the sources which state exactly why "cultural marxism" is anti-semitic and then come back here. Read everyone of them, one by one, in order to maximize your information gathering. And there is no such thing as "British cultural marxism". Cultural Marxism is simply a favourite talking point of the extreme-right, made purely to defame their opposition, blame a manufactured enemy in order to hide the real issues facing the civilian populace, and has it's origins in the "Judeobolshevismus" meme propagated by Joseph Goebbels during Nazi-era Germany. Whether it is said by an Australian, an Englishman, an American, a German, or a Papuan changes nothing about the fact that it does have antisemitic undertones and that it is nothing more than manufactured fearmongering, designed to spook others into joining their respective organizations. Said references for reading are down below:

Extended content

Adrian Fey (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@StAnselm: it's the claim that anyone who uses the phrase is necessarily referring to the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. We're not making that claim, it's just Fraser Anning referring to "Cultural Marxism" as defined by that. Anning is clearly not referring to anything else, such as a method of analysing history and culture. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

But you haven't been able to provide a reliable source for that. StAnselm (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that Anning means it in a way other than the common meaning? Otherwise we default to the correct assumption that Anning is referring to what is commonly referred to as Cultural Marxism, even if we knew no context of him. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a matter of context. If Anning said the sky was blue, would we assume that he was saying the sky was sad, or that the sky was the colour blue? We're not going to contort ourselves into pretzels to try to make it out like he was being poetic instead of literal. It's nonsense to assume he's referring to something other than the antisemitic conspiracy theory, given Anning's antisemitism. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not how sourcing works, especially with BLPs. The term is indeed used in non-anti-Semitic contexts,[4] so the onus is on us to source the connection. StAnselm (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

If this calms you down, here are several secondary sources stating that Fraser Anning was indeed referring to the "cultural marxism" canard in his maiden speech:

https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/while-all-muslims-are-not-terrorists-certainly-all-terrorists-these-days-are-muslims-senator-anning-said/news-story/c0753644cfccdda0394619e6f9dc01b5

http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/national-news/senator-fraser-anning-uses-first-speech-call-safe-schools-gender-diversity-garbage/171114 Satisfied? Now we no longer have to keep invoking the "B-but primary sources are bad!" cliché to insert said sourced paragraph to his biography, and academic and politological consensus generally agrees that cultural marxism is indeed an antisemitic conspiracy theory commonly pripagated by the extreme right to paintnsocialy liberal or centrist values as "orchestrated intellectual plots to systematically destroy and undermine Western civilization and the traditional nuclear family", as evidenced in the by now collapsed list of references I presented.

And in this specific instance, Anning was obviously not referring to "cultural marxism" in the rare "non-antisemitic" fashion you proposed, and judging by his outspoken far-right views and hostility to anyone who is not a white and Anglo-Saxon Australian, there is little reason to believe he didn't say it in a malicious and deceptive fashion. Adrian Fey (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

No, certainly not satisfied. Both sources are quoting the speech directly. They offer no comment on the meaning or connotation of the phrase. StAnselm (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

May I directly quote WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD to you, mate?

" "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher.

Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources." Virtually every source I've presented clearly states Fraser Anning did indeed invoke the Cultural Marxism trope in his speech, and academic/historian consensus agrees that cultural marxism is either a conspiracy theory and snarlword used by the extreme-right to defame or wrongfully accuse anyone opposed to them from the left of "trying to destroy Western culture and traditional values", or outright refers to it as an antisemitic canard, directly descended from the "Judeo-Bolshevism" trope used by Joseph Goebbels in Nazi propaganda, as stated in the above references which are now collapsed. What on earth is still disputable about that I am not aware of. Adrian Fey (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

It's interesting that you point out two possibilities: that indicates we don't necessarily have an anti-Semitic connection (which was the wording under discussion). But no - none of the sources "clearly state" that he is invoking any sort of trope. And I think it's highly significant that none of the news sources saw fit to report on this! StAnselm (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I should point out that a connection has indeed been made between the Safe Schools program and Marxism (not necessarily of the "cultural" variety): the founder, Roz Ward, has been described by The Age has having a "hardline Marxist" background.[5] StAnselm (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Roz Ward has long been removed from his position as the "chairman" of the program, and "Safe Schools" have been drastically overhauled and put under control of the education ministry for years, thus effectively rendering any "lingering marxist" influence moot, as the current Government of Australia is of the "centre-right" and LGBT activism is not a far-left phenomenon. Even the article you've cited says that in it's headline. Jeez, you've really forgot what the "guilt by association" fallacy is. Adrian Fey (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I note it to show that this might have been what was in Anning's mind. But of course it's not for us to speculate. StAnselm (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Compromise

So, there's been a fair bit of debate about this now. I think most of us agree that fair minded people would probably assume Anning was referring to the antisemitic conspiracy theory, especially when mentioned in a speech that also refers to a "final solution" to immigration. That being said, it is going to be challenged over and over as is because the detail of reporting around it has mostly focused on the "final solution". His use of the term cultural Marxism is covered in news and it is in the Hansard - given the comments context i think it's important that it does get a mention, it is noteworthy - Anning has a well documented connection to the extreme-right and neo-Nazis: https://honisoit.com/2019/01/neo-nazi-academic-and-alleged-fraser-anning-final-solution-speechwriter-taught-at-usyd/

So, how about a compromise and add StAnselm's wording -Anning criticised what he called "cultural Marxism"- and perhaps also mention that the maiden speech was allegedly co-authored by a known neo-Nazi, Frank Salter. Bacondrum (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate this move, but we cannot include allegations. StAnselm (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

There is now a strong consensus against hiding that Cultural Marxism, whatever Anning was referring to, is a conspiracy theory. StAnselm cannot continue to revert those changes on the basis of WP:BLP given the overwhelming consensus here that has determined it is not a violation of those policies, and that it is not contentious to say so. I appeal to StAnselm to not revert the same edits because it's very clear that they will be sanctioned for edit warring. BLP is not a free pass to overrule consensus.

As for a compromise, it is inappropriate to particularly seek one that is between one editor and all other editors. This is nothing against StAnselm but there are now several editors interested in how this article is written, and if there is to be compromise it should be between all concerned editors and not just been one versus the rest. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

A majority is not a consensus; Wikipedia is not a democracy. Look, if you really think we've reached a consensus (I don't), you're welcome to ask an uninvolved admin to close the discussion. StAnselm (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

You're certainly courageous but it's almost unanimous. You haven't convinced anyone that calling Cultural Marxism a conspiracy theory in the article is a violation of WP:BLP. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

...and you haven't convinced me that it isn't. StAnselm (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe if you've actually bothered to read the literature I've cited in the "extended content" section and read up on the origins of the "cultural marxism" meme including it's ties to the "judeo-bolshevismus" canard and it's analysis by the SPLC, you would then realize why exactly is cultural marxism classified as a antisemitic conspiracy theory and why it's not a BLP violation to refer to it as. WP:CENSOR. Just like we did with William Connolly's name in this article, we don't remove content from Wikipedia just because it may be objectionable for some or the fact they state sourced inconvenient truths. And judging by your repeated attempts to remove that specific paragraph in particular in spite of the spate of sources we've already cited to prove it is a conspiracy theory and the fact consensus has settled that it is not a "BLP!" violation, I frankly see it as POV-pushing censorship, which fits a possible Anning supporter. Adrian Fey (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Lets just get the cultural Marxism mention in there for now, when someone finds a stronger citation we can elaborate on the painfully obvious antisemitic connotations. I do agree @Adrian Fey: that Wikipedia should not be aiding and abetting right-wing extremists in acts of clear and obvious obfuscation of extremist ideology, that's not StAnselms fault. The far-right is completely dishonest and gas lights society all the time, they know their beliefs are completely unacceptable to the majority of people - Anning and the likes are experts at saying just enough to be heard by their supporters, but not enough to be held to account, I guess that's why they call it dog whistling (and sadly Australian reporters don't often pull them up on it) - So the Nazi's get away with it most the time, except when they get screen grabbed talking about hanging Hitlers portrait in schools lol. So lets at least include that he used the disgusting phrase in his maiden speech, I'm sure some quality analysis will come out at some point that makes it clear what was meant...I had to wait ages for the media and academics to start referring to UPF as neo-Nazi's but they got there eventually, and now their page refers to them as such. Bacondrum (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

So, until we get a stronger citation can we agree to at least mention it by adding - Anning criticised what he called "cultural Marxism"? We can elaborate if or when a better source is published. Bacondrum (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. StAnselm (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The thing is we already have a better source for cultural marxism's antisemitic connotations and it's ties to Nazi propaganda of the German extreme right. In case you haven't bothered to look, StAnselm, the collapsed list of references I've painstakingly copied over here state the exact reason why "cultural marxism" is an anti-semitic conspiracy theory, without any weasel words or abstract concepts.

I say we should restore the "cultural marxism" part as it was originally inserted there by Bacondrum prior to the article's protection due to a ongoing edit war between me and Bacon versus StAnselm, with an reference immediately following the "antisemitic" phrase with either the SPLC's article on the topic, or the "The Alt-Right's meme is 100 years old" analysis as presented in the Frankfurt School article's subsection of the conspiracy theory, or even citing them both. And after that paragraph, we are adding in the news article that referenced Fraser Anning's full verbatim text of his maiden speech to prove he did indeed invoke the phrase in his own words and thus it is not a "BLP!" violation to refer to it as such. This sort of compromise should hopefully satisfy all sides of this dispute, and prove once and for all that referring to inconvenient truths such as the "cultural marxism" theory being a antisemitic canard is not defamatory. Adrian Fey (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2≤019 (UTC)

But once again, we have no reliable source explaining Anning's use of the phrase. Merely having the text of the speech together with the SPLC would be improper synthesis, since the phrase has been used in other contexts. StAnselm (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It is supposed to source exactly why "cultural marxism" is antisemitic as it is an adjective of said concept, which does not change and bend in accordance with how rightwing extremists phrase or utter it. Fraser Anning was clearly and indisputably referring to cultural marxism in his speech, and consensus agrees, both in the historian, political science, and academic community and this talk page itself, that cultural marxism does have antisemitic origins as a snarl word and is in fact a direct descendant of the "Judeo-Bolshevismus" meme used by Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels in his keynote speeches about marxism "destroying German culture through it's insidious gang of rootless conspirators that has it's origin in Jewry". And considering that Fraser Anning openly associates with white nationalist and the aforementioned neo-Nazi UPF organization, not to mention his own ideology is of the extreme-right, him referring to "cultural marxism" in any other context other than the baseless and antisemitic conspiracy theory propagated by William S. Lind, Pat Buchanan, Paul Joseph Watson, Richard Spencer et al et al is questionable and unsourced at best. And no amount of "But that's not British Cultural Marxism!" (Which is in itself a "No True Scotsman" fallacy to obfuscate the antisemitic origins of the snarlword) will change it's cardinal definition. Adrian Fey (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. Consensus does not require everyone agree. All we have to say is that Anning referred to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory with antisemitic undertones in this maiden speech. If he said for example that he disputes the historically accepted methods that were used to kill people in the Holocaust, we would very well say he was expressing Holocaust denialism and we would not have to wait for him to admit that he is doing that. One editor has made their objection but the consensus is clearly on the side of mentioning the nature of Cultural Marxism when we refer to it in the article. This does not end the discussion, as clearly there are different ways it can be written, but we have agreed on that much at least. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree - let's add it back in. Please don't break 3RR again Anselm. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's tiresome. No, I'm not going to back down. I think it's clear that we've reached an impasse: all of us are repeating the same arguments over and over again. So we need to work out where we go from here. It seems we have three options: (1) start and RfC on the issue: this will help us get more input, but will take a few weeks; (2) post a close request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure: this will also take a few weeks; (3) ask one of the admins who have protected the page (User:Abecedare and User:El C) to close the discussion, determine consensus and then unprotect the page for editing. What are everyone's thoughts? StAnselm (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

This discussion doesn't need to be closed. As I've said, there is still much discussion that can be had about the best way to describe the contentious elements of Anning's speech. It is highly irregular for discussions to be closed outside of formal processes like RfC, they simply just end with no further responses and eventually gets archived.

On the matter at hand, it is clear what will happen. Something describing Cultural Marxism in the way that StAnselm objects will be restored to the article, and StAnselm will break 3RR because of their arguments which they are entitled to believe, but ultimately is against consensus. It should be apparent to everyone that the consensus here has determined that to describe Cultural Marxism on this article is not a violation of WP:BLP, and we have been generous in hearing why StAnselm believes it to be. Someone will report them, and they will have to accept the consequences of that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Question In order to move the discussion forward, can someone specify exactly what language is being proposed to be added to the article, and the sources that would support it? To aid evaluation, it would be helpful if you would point to the exact paragraphs/sentences in the sources that the proposed text is intended to reflect/summarize. Abecedare (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Protection

Change the protection from Fully-protected to Extended confirmed protected so only confirmed users with over 500 edits can edit this page. Michael14375 (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 April 2019 Suggestion

I noticed that this page has a bare url for a reference. Could someone please fill it? Thank you! Jmertel23 (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC) Jmertel23 (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done think I found it. If there are any more, please be more specific about where is. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Sorry for the vagueness - I usually use the refill tool, so I don't usually even think about where specifically they are. Thanks for doing this! Jmertel23 (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 April 2019 - Fraser Anning's Conservative National Party

Add the following section under the heading "Political career" (or similar)

Fraser Anning's Conservative National Party On 4 April 2019, Senator Anning's party Fraser Anning's Conservative National Party was registered by the Australian Electoral Commission. Anning said he would be ""be announcing candidates across most lower house seats" and "running a Senate team in every state" for the 2019 election.

Two parties, the Australian Conservatives and The Nationals objected to the name, arguing it was too similar to theirs and would cause confusion for voters. However, the AEC said the use of "Fraser" and "Anning" in the party's name was "sufficient to aurally and visually distinguish the party's name and abbreviation from other names and abbreviations on the ballot paper". trainsandtech (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. any comments from others about this proposed addition? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Include. This was the big news yesterday, and it was a shame that we couldn't keep up to date because of an editing dispute. StAnselm (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Agreed. Current coverage of his party on this article is out-of-date. Potentially might warrant its own article in the future, probably depending on how it performs at the election and how much of a stir it makes. Also it should be added to his infobox which describes him as an independent. trainsandtech (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
•  Added per wording suggested by trainsandtech — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

There's a typo in the second sentence. Also I suggest it's linked to the main article Fraser Anning's Conservative National Party. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Winston Peters

"Dear Winston Peters, @winstonpeters Why did you say that Islamic moderate and extremist groups – "fit hand and glove everywhere they exist?”. Your statements directed towards me are completely hollow. It is clear you are simply bowing down to Jacinta and her leftist agenda. 20 hours ago" Senator Fraser Anning (@fraser_anning) · Twitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshrosenbergoz (talk • contribs) 04:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Why is this here? Cite a publication in which this has been quoted and demonstrate relevance to the article - or remove the section. Wikiain (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

the OP of this talk section has made just 2 contributions. The other is also Fraser Anning-related.

further, the OP has borrowed a famous politician’s name. Is this permissible? “Passing off as...”

What? A twitter squabble between Winston Peters and Fraser Anning is not even slightly worth noting. We are not here to point out that a man who criticised Anning appears to be a hypocrite. Drawing a very, very long bow. Bacondrum (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)