Talk:Fraser Anning/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

The Age:

Sydney Morning Herald:

The ABC:

SBS:

News.com:

Bloomberg:

The Financial Review:

The Australian:

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:

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)

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.[1] 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.[2]

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".[3] trainsandtech (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.sbs.com.au/news/behind-fraser-anning-s-new-party-name. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/111811424/australian-senator-fraser-anning-registers-his-own-political-party. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ https://www.sbs.com.au/news/behind-fraser-anning-s-new-party-name. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
 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)
  • plus 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)

Adding cultural Marxism to further reading section

What do ya'll say to adding a wikilink to cultural Marxism in the further reading section, that way people whe are interested in the term used can read about it without us explicitly claiming that that is the way Anning intended it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs)

No - implicit suggestions are even worse. StAnselm (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
How is it implying he meant it as a conspiracy? He used the phrase, if people want to read about the phrase he used, that's the only info on Wikipedia about it. it's loaded language and its use was widely reported. Bacondrum (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Did you mean "see also"? Among other things, we don't even have an article on cultural Marxism ( I believe it's been discussed several times). StAnselm (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The relevant policy is WP:BLPSEEALSO. StAnselm (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't say anything about not having further reading links to wiki-pages about subjects mentioned in article. Just says not to publish self published material especially when it's written by the subject. It also says don't make implications by adding contentious links to the see also section, but I'm just talking about further reading on a subject mentioned that people very well may want to read about. Again, how would further reading on phrasing the man used be implying anything? Bacondrum (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
StAnselm is unfortunately implying that cultural Marxism is a bad thing, and therefore a reason not to associate this with Anning. I do not see any reason or justification to include cultural Marxism in any further reading or similar section. I repeat again that describing cultural Marxism in the way Anning used the term does not say Anning believes this, as he could be oblivious to the term. We cannot say how Anning has intended anything he said. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's just me. I think lots of people have been suggesting that here. And the "anti-Semitic" thing might well lead one in that direction. StAnselm (talk) 05:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
We don't take notice of what makes someone look good or bad. We report things objectively, and there are objectively themes of antisemitism surrounding Anning among other things. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
StAnselm cultural Marxism is only a bad thing if you think cultural Marxism is an antisemitic conspiracy theory and that's only a bad thing if you think antisemitic conspiracy theories are bad, and you'd most likely only think that if you thought antisemitism is bad, which is all a personal point of view. I think it's bad, but that's just my opinion. Not everyone does think that the use of the term is bad, many people use it, including Anning. Let the reader be informed as to the phrases use and let the reader decide for themselves. It's not like it wasn't said. Bacondrum (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip is completely correct. Plenty of people believe there is a global Zionist conspiracy, Wikipedia does not imply that cultural Marxism is good or bad. It's not up to us to decide how people will perceive things. Bacondrum (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
In this case, any reference to "negative" material in BLP policy has no meaning because any description might sound positive to some people. But certainly there are many ways in which it doesn't matter if the material is positive or negative: poorly sourced material is to be removed regardless. StAnselm (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
So it's not inherently negative and there are reliable primary and secondary sources regarding the fact that the phrase was used, just not that it was meant in an antisemitic way. Surely readers can be directed to further reading on the terms history based on those facts.
I'm still confused what you're asking for. Do you want to add Frankfurt School to the "see also" section? StAnselm (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The section on cultural Marxism. Or that Ioan Davis piece...in-fact, that would be the better option. That way no hyperlinks are added to the section and thus nothing is implied, it's just mentioned that he said it and if the reader is interested there is an article for further reading. Bacondrum (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm... well, it doesn't look like we have consensus to include a mention of CM in the first place, so it's a moot point. StAnselm (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
The relevant guideline is MOS:FURTHER. It's supposed to be for items "that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject"> It doesn't seem such a link would help the reader learn more about Anning. StAnselm (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough Bacondrum (talk) 00:49, 13 April 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)
the video showing Connolly being held in a headlock is also here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G_DnODkIMdg Boscaswell talk 02:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
and this report has a picture of the chokehold https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-47862374 Boscaswell talk 10:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Now that full protection has been lifted, I’ve added the BBC link. I think this section is now concluded. Boscaswell talk 05:45, 14 April 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)
@Frickeg: I’d be interested in your response to my lengthy comment just above here. It was in response to yours. Thanks. Boscaswell talk 05:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Let me say at the outset that, in my view, Anning is a strong candidate for the vilest piece of work to besmirch the Australian parliament since the Second World War. I have no doubt in my mind that he is a dangerous racist, and I have no problem with mention of him being accused of that, reliably sourced, further down the page. But a few points here:
  • "Fraser Anning is a racist" is an incontrovertible statement - no it isn't. You believe it, and I believe it, but that doesn't make it incontrovertible. There are many who would argue otherwise, including Anning himself. This is Wikipedia and we need to rely on sources, not our own judgement of people.
  • MOS:OPENPARABIO says "the notable position(s) the person held, activities they took part in, or roles they played" should form part of the opening paragraph. Anning is notable as a politician.
  • I find it odd that you use Himmler as an example here. I don't think anyone could reasonably dispute that Himmler was a racist, yet does our opening sentence describe him as such? No. It says he was a "Reichsführer of the Schutzstaffel (Protection Squadron; SS), and a leading member of the Nazi Party (NSDAP) of Germany", because that is what gives him notability. Some other noted racists in which the word does not appear in the opening sentence: Adolf Hitler, Nathan Bedford Forrest, George Lincoln Rockwell, Oswald Mosley, Jean-Marie Le Pen, virtually every Australian politician in the first few decades after Federation. In fact I have not found "racist" in any biography's opening sentence. A few have something along the lines of "white supremacist", but only when the person in question has explicitly embraced that label and their notability stems entirely from that fact or an associated act (i.e. Dylann Roof).
I would have no issue with the article saying something like "Anning has been condemned as racist, including by Morrison, Shorten, et al. [appropriately cited]; he rejects the label", even in the lead (although obviously not in the lead sentence). Someone being particularly vile does not make WP:BLP go away, and it would be nice if everyone remembered that. Frickeg (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. Some of the arguments around not saying bad things about people who say and do bad things are ridiculous, I can imagine some folks would say that calling Hitler a Nazi was a BLP violation. Bacondrum (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Er, no, given that Hitler was the leader of the Nazi Party, I don't think they would. Not making moral judgements on our subjects is a pretty important part of this project, especially when they are BLPs. Frickeg (talk) 10:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@Frickeg: Calling somebody a racist is not a moral judgement unless you think racism is bad, which many racists do not. It has a factual meaning. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@PeterTheFourth: You are correct, but I was responding to the point about "saying bad things about people who say and do bad things", which is absolutely not our role. Anning, though, does not accept the description of "racist", and even if he did, it would still not be appropriate for the lead sentence, because that is not his source of notability. Frickeg (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@Frickeg: Do you believe that people have to 'accept the description' for it to be in their Wikipedia article? PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@PeterTheFourth: Anything in the very first sentence should be uncontroversially factual. "Fraser Anning is a racist" is clearly not that. (Also, there is a policy WP:RACIST that deals with this exact thing, not to mention the whole thing comes under WP:BLP. Someone provide a very significant number of non-opinion sources describing him as "racist", and then we'll talk.) Frickeg (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Frickeg: I appreciate your response and I understand what you’re saying, even partially agree with it, if that’s possible. I’m not totally swayed, though, and I respect also what @PeterTheFourth: has said. My view on this whole area is that Wikipedia’s BLP guidelines can and are abused, and in bending over backwards to be as bland as possible, we often come across like lettuce that’s been uprooted and left in the sun for days. Wikipedia is not here to be controversial, but then sometimes a spade must be called a spade. In this case? Probably not at the start of the lede.

During the Russian Presidential election campaign of a few years ago, there was a vast amount of editing activity on the article about Vladimir Putin. Perhaps the most active editor was, and here I regret that I can’t remember his or her username precisely, but it had grey in it, so I’ll call him or her greyx. Greyx’s input was relentless. S/he used seemingly every possible BLP guideline and more to ensure that the article was favourable to Putin and contained little or no negative statements. A way was found to do this, using Wikipedia guidelines.

So @Bacondrum:, your comment about Hitler being a Nazi breaching BLP guidelines: spot on. Boscaswell talk 22:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I think it's a stupid guidline, in the case of racists and Nazis for example, it's circular reasoning. The end result being that you can't call things what they are. I prefer to call a spade a spade, not a garden implement. Bacondrum (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@Frickeg: I also hear what you are saying. I do see a problem with the relevant guidelines when dealing with actual racists and nazi's though. Bacondrum (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@Boscaswell: @Bacondrum: I do understand where you're coming from here, and you're not wrong that BLP can be abused, but the issue is that you are both relying on your judgement of Anning's racism, and while I may (and do) personally agree, I do not see the sources indicating that this is the only accepted view. Frickeg (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2019 (UT
@Frickeg: I agree. For now. ;-) Sources may appear. As Harold MacMillan said, it’s “Events, dear boy, events!” ;-) Meanwhile, over at the Fraser Anning’s Conservative National Party article, it is described as being “right wing” *sigh* Have a good one! Boscaswell talk 07:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely, just sharing my thoughts on some of the mealy mouthed phrasing that results from some of these BLP debates around not calling racists racists and not calling neo-Nazis, neo-Nazis etc. Bacondrum (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
To call Anning racist or Nazi, assuming you believe that to be true, would be calling a spade a garden tool. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Wuh? Bacondrum (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Fraser_Anning/Archive_1"