Talk:Fraser Anning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Australia / Politics / Queensland (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconFraser Anning is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (marked as Low-importance).
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for other than editorial assistance.

Edit Protection[edit]

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)

"Final Solution"[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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"[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

BLP[edit]

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![edit]

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019[edit]

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

the 'recieved criticism' intro paragraph getting a little weasely[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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)
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)
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)