Talk:Pauline Hanson/Archive 2

Missing information...

Hanson was born in 1954. This article picks up in 1994. There's no personal info here including family info, birthplace, childhood etc. Just saying. :) --Merbabu (talk) 05:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

2013 federal election

Pauline Hanson has announced she will run as an independent for the NSW seat of Hunter in the upcoming federal election. Here’s one source: [1]. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Heavy Going

This article is overly dense in my view and could be trimmed without losing quality. After "Action against Pauline Hanson and the One Nation Party" there is too much detail and certainly much of it can left to references, i.e make a point and reference it- no need to repeat a huge amount of the original source. Just saying. FlatOut 11:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is discussed above. 3 editors agreed including me (see above), and I removed most of it. 1 editor, the original contributor, however, insists on flimsy grounds that it remain and reinstated it. The other 2 editors who agreed have expressed to me that they are not interested in pursuing the issue. Now with your support, perhaps I will remove it again. --Merbabu (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be a case of trying to cover all material on a subject, rather than a reasonable overview with original sources to provide the detail. Consensus needs to be reached. WP:ISNOT FlatOut 11:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Merbabu's unilaterally removed it and he's going to do what he wants anyway and that is pretty clear - so much for Wiki - I suppose go ahead and trash the piece and stick in what ever bias you want - and I'll publish it where people do know the facts and history. --Mikstev (talk) 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Any editor is entitled to make changes and in this particular case there was consensus for Merbabu's edit. You should assume good faith. WP editing must be achieved by consensus. FlatOut 03:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Mikstev appears to have missed your suggestion to create a separate article for the 13,000 kb of info they would like kept here in full detail (as opposed to summary which I have no problem with). I'm not certain that a new article is the way to go, however, I might propose it at the requested articles page to hopefully achieve a broader consensus either way. --Merbabu (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Rental properties

The article implies that she had acquired several rental properties - whilst working in a fish and chip shop and then unskilled jobs - by the age of 16, when she married. Surely that cannot be correct.Royalcourtier (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

"Heroes and villains"

There is an attempt to include a quote from the Bulletin's influential Australians list in the lead to the effect that the list includes "both heroes and villains". I find this entirely inappropriate, especially for a BLP. "Influential" does not automatically mean "super-duper-awesome" (who could argue that Hitler was influential?), and including the quote is clearly an attempt to qualify the initial statement ("she was listed as influential, but *wink wink* remember that includes villains too!"). I have no time for Hanson's politics but this kind of innuendo is not our job. Frickeg (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI - I've already given my 2c to the user who claimed influential = positive here. And we certainly shouldn't include "heroes and villians" in the context it's given, it's highly unencyclopedic. Timeshift (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pauline Hanson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131208103707/http://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=1590 to http://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=1590

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

27 mentions of Tony Abbott

• Number of mentions of Tony Abbott in this article on 1 December 2009 (day Abbott became LP leader): TWO
  
• Number of mentions of Tony Abbott in this article now: TWENTY-SEVEN
  

Hmmm..... --Surturz (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, he did choose to take her on with his trust fund. That certainly deserves some attention in the article. More than two mentions. What would you accept? Which mentions shouldn't be there? HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I've started removing the original research based on court case documents. That's a good start. --Surturz (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you did, and I reverted. Why start a discussion and then fail to wait for responses? You only have one response (from me), and have even responded to that yourself. HiLo48 (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

why did you revert? --Surturz (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not the number of mentions of the name Abbot that concern me. It's the overdue length of the section in general. --Merbabu (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the number of him being mentioned could be reduced, but the seriousness of his involvement cannot be downplayed. That is: Making moves to send an innocent person to prison.

There is a very high bar before you embark on that. My personal view is that it's about as despiccable as it gets to send an innocent person to prison, for political gain, personal gain later on (stint as PM), and pride because one of the advisors defected from Abbott's office. I had not been interested in all the players and what went on; I only found Abbott's 10 second grab 'it couldn't go on' very, very curious. Who is he, I thought, to say what goes on or not? It sounded arrogant, vindictive, manipulative, and know-it-all - being just a political manoeuver to put someone in prison for selfish reasons. I don't care about Hanson or her ideas - what Abbott did was beyond the pale and it could hit each and everyone of us if we dare to be different and dare to venture into 'their' space. The Liberal Party should have been ashamed of themselves. 101.166.68.175 (talk) 07:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The refs are terrible too, e.g. [2]. Not sure why HiLo48 is defending the section. --Surturz (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

To be fair to all, both your positions are predictable. But that's how wikipedia works. :D --Merbabu (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Whether the refs are bad or not, just from a length point of view it needs work. It’s a notable part of the story and should remain. But someone needs to go through and pick out the main narrative. --Merbabu (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. My first trim got reverted though so I'll leave it to someone else for now. --Surturz (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Your first effing trim got effing reverted because there was an effing conversation underway (YOUR effing idea, remember?!!!). Your initial post had had one response. Mine. I asked a couple of questions. You ignored all that (even though YOU began the conversation) and modified that precise part of the article. Why the fork did you start the effing conversation if you were just going to ignore responses anyway and do what you bloody well liked to the article. Sometimes I simply cannot comprehend the behaviour of others here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Posting a comment on a talkpage doesn't prohibit an editor from editing the article as far as I am aware. Have a look at the references being used. Hardly WP:RS, and given the WP:BLP concerns I'm surprised you are defending the text. I don't think we should cherry pick testimony from legal cases to use as article text. --Surturz (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any prescribed rule preventing someone from changing an article after commencing a conversation on the Talk page, but there IS common sense, good manners, logic, rational behaviour, seeking an impartial image, etc, etc, etc. I didn't defend the text. I took part in YOUR conversation. I thought it was what you wanted. I obviously don't understand you. HiLo48 (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That section is so dense with details, "of who did this, then who did that, etc, etc". It just ambles and i can't work out what's happening (although I admit I'm a bit impatient). Perhaps the whole lot just needs to be chopped and the main point (was it that Abbot organised a slush fund???) be expressed in a single paragraph. Seems more productive than trying to trim it down. Who knows about this episode? Is there a good summary source somewhere? --Merbabu (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is too much of it there. The first I learnt of this story was here on Wikipedia, so I'm not much help on how it should read. HiLo48 (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Update - some action

OK, so I’ve chopped out most of that section per the apparent agreement above that it's way too long. I did take the first paragraph, and the last paragraph and put them into the section “Fraud and Aquittal” (or whatever it’s called). These two paragraphs seems to be the key points of Abbott’s involvement. The stuff I removed is just too dense. I can’t actually work what was happening – seems like quite a saga. It’s not what wikipedia is about. --Merbabu (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - it's much better, but still some work to do I think. Chronology is a bit muddled. Can we agree that the key points are 1) She got jailed 2) She was acquitted 3) Abbott was involved in organising the legal action (IIRC this was discovered later), and Howard gave Abbott public support. --Surturz (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Chronology is very muddled and had the historical and documented truth removed. I agree that the key points are 1) She got jailed 2) She was acquitted 3) Abbott was involved in organising the legal action (IIRC this was discovered later), and Howard gave Abbott public support. However there is far more to this which people are not aware of - unilaterally removing the Action section without verifying the facts with people who know is a disservice - let alone while one is working on the piece - the section has been referenced for years - is well documented and I spent 16 years on the information including in court. --Mikstev (talk) 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop edit warring. You will not secure your content by reverting. It was not a unilateral removal. Three different editors agreed - and at least two of them are known to have diametrically opposed political positions. You on the other hand are alone in this. I also note over the years on your talk page, at the One Nation page, and the Tony Abbot page other editors have also made similar complaints about your input on Hanson. On the other hand, I cannot see a single editor who actually agrees with you. --Merbabu (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes Mikstev, while there is definitely some value in having something in the article on the topic you're interested in, the amount of detail you want to add is significant. It must be obvious to you that not everyone is going to instantly agree with your perspective. Given that you're pretty certain about it's validity, the right approach is to leave the overblown text removed and discuss what you would like to see added on this Talk page first. Good persuasive argument here for good text in the article is the right approach. HiLo48 (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No edit warring intended here. I understand what your saying, however my question is do the three different editors who agreed know the history? They may have diametrically opposed political positions, but political position is not what Wiki is about, unless I've missed something there. I do not think I'm alone in this at all, and neither do many others who witnessed and have compiled the researched history as I have. I have not seen legitimate complaints about my input regarding this. --Mikstev (talk) 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Three people have said it's too long and excessive. And it's bloody confusing. It's not what an encyclopedia is about. It needs to be removed. --Merbabu (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay HiLo48, I have reviewed the EW page from Merbabu. The length of the sections are comparative to the existing sections. The Information was not removed until recently and has been there for quite a few years with no legitimate challenge as to the content. If the info is "bloody confusing", maybe a suggestion as to what statement is confusing may help. This piece has been referenced by many in the last years and hasn't been canned as "long and excessive", so a suggestion as to what statement should be removed and why may help. Somethings can be should and some things warrant the background - which is a good way to understand history. --Mikstev (talk) 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Splitting your dense slab of text into a number of separate sections does not make a difference. It's still the same general topic and excessive. Please remove and respect the Wikipedia process. --Merbabu (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Mikstev have you considered starting a new page to cover the era you are interested in and which is significant in history? Might be an option for putting your work to good use. FlatOut 11:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Far right?

Hanson is certainly right wing, but I would dispute the categorization of her as far right. That title is more character assassination than fact.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you want me to round up sources calling her far right? Because every reputable source I have found has called her as such. If nothing else she is further to the right than the Liberal-Nationals which makes her Far right in the context of Australian politics. Awnman (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Far right doesn't describe Hanson accurately. Those on one side of politics might see here as waaaay over on the other side, but that doesn't make it so. If anybody wants to mount a fact-based examination of her policies to place her in that category, feel free to argue the case here. --Pete (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of far right. All we can base it on is external reputable sources. --Atiru (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, make up your mind. I suggest we base it on what Wikipedia defines as far right, hmmmmm? --Pete (talk) 07:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pauline Hanson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110117082947/http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/1997-98/98rn49.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/1997-98/98rn49.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080228203402/http://www.paulinehanson.com.au/maidenspeech/pauline-maiden-speech.pdf to http://www.paulinehanson.com.au/maidenspeech/pauline-maiden-speech.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

link to referendum

In the "Origins" section, please add a link to Australian referendum, 1967 (Aboriginals) behind the text "the 1967 constitutional referendum which gave the Commonwealth power to legislate for Aborigines", as this is the referendum which One Nation sought to review. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

She is not a "senator-elect"

That term refers to a person who has been elected as a senator but whose term has not yet commenced, such as what occurs at every regular half-Senate election, where people newly elected do not begin their terms until the following 1st July. But on this occasion, the entire Senate was dissolved along with the House of Representatives, and every person elected (to either House) begins their term on election day, 2nd July 2016. Therefore, if it's beyond doubt that someone has been elected - even if they have not yet been formally declared elected, or sworn in - their proper title is "Senator" (or "MP" for lower house people), not "Senator-elect". Those whose elections are not yet certain get no special title. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

PS. I appreciate that we may be a little reticent to declare her a "senator" before the AEC has formally done so, but calling her a "senator-elect" is certainly not the answer. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

New topics below here...

A few days ago I attempted to add this sentence to the lead of the article:

"Many people consider her [Hanson] to be a racist and xenophobic politician, but she defends her anti-Aboriginal and anti-immigrant views by saying that she speaks for the majority of Australians."

Only a few hours after I added this sentence, it was removed by a user who considered it to be "unsourced opinion." It is true that I did not include a citation for this information. However, my intention was not to incude encyclopaedic content, rather, I wished to summarize the information in the article. A subsection of the article is dedicated to the allgations of racism against Hanson and I think this should be discussed in the lead. Also, one could make the case that Hanson and her One Nation Party are well known partly because of this racism controversy.

I am not upset about this incident, as I do not have much experience with editing Wikipedia, and I am sincerely sorry if my edit violated Wikipedia's neutrality policies. However, I believe that we should try our best to include a statement about the allegations of racism that have been leveled against Hanson as part of the lead. If anyone has ideas as to how best we can do this, I am willing hear them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.69.74 (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced opinion - which incidentally is not supported by the facts - should be removed. To say that you were "not upset" implies that you were the victim here, actually you were not following Wikipedia rules, and allowing your political views to influence editing.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Pauline Hanson's fish and chip shop employees were aboriginal and also included an asian asylum seeker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.132 (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Information

I have found some information to add to the article:

• The first woman to form an Australian political party in 1997. [3]
• Appeared on the first season of Dancing with the Stars in 2004.
• Appeared on the first season of The Celebrity Apprentice Australia in 2011.

Thank you, New9374 (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hanson as the first woman to found an auspol party is not accurate - the founders of the Australian Women's Party (1995) were women. DwtS has been added briefly in the rough chronological order, as has Celebrity Apprentice. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you 211.30.17.74. New9374 (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yanner's verbal abuse of Pauline Hanson

Pauline hanson was recently abused verbally by aboriginal notable Murrandoo Yanner who likely did not know that Hanson's Fish and chip shop staff (before she entered politics) were aboriginal. Whilst Hanson was regularly harrangued by violent opponents as being anti-aboriginal she decently protected her staff's privacy.

TKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.97.108 (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

'After being elected...'

'After being elected to Parliament in 1996, journalist Tracey Curro asked Hanson...' can only mean that Curro was elected to Parliament - but as far as I can tell Curro is still simply a journalist. For this sentence to make sense, it should read 'After Hanson was elected to Parliament in 1996, journalist Tracey Curro asked her....'. This is not grammar-bullies' nitpicking - as it stands, the sentence simply doesn't mean what it's surely intended to mean.213.127.210.95 (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I've edited the sentence to be clearer. clpo13_(talk) 18:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Islam is different to Islamophobia

User:Afterwriting reverted a reversion I'd made earlier. Rather than engage in an edit war (or respond with posts on each others' talk pages) it'd be better to seek consensus on what to call the section outlining Hanson's policies in relation to Islam. Islamophobia is to Islam what anti-Semitism is to Judaism. Calling the section "Islam" would be like calling anti-Jewish policies in countries like Hungary "Judaism". It's a completely inaccurate description. If you are worried about NPOV as so many editors are, to the point of white-washing, there are other potential headings, for example, "Anti-Islam policies". Simply calling the section "Islam" is plain nuts. Atiru (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The relevant section heading is "Racial allegations", subsection "Policies". To be more NPOV, the present three policy descriptions could be changed to (1) Indigenous, (2) Islamic (3) Immigration (4) Multicultural. The "anti-" element is both unnecesary and inconsistent, being subsumed by the main head "Racial allegations". Bjenks (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Fix bitterharvest citation

In this edit, the citation named "bitterharvest" was removed, leading to a citation error. Please restore it as follows in the "Relationships" section: Hanson was heavily pregnant with their second child, Steven (born 1975). They reconciled briefly in 1977, but later divorced that same year.<ref name="bitterharvest">{{cite news |url=http://www.smh.com.au/good-weekend/gw-classics/pauline-hansons-bitter-harvest-20140828-109dbf.html |title=Pauline Hanson's bitter harvest |publisher=Smh.com.au |date=17 September 2014 |accessdate=4 July 2016}}</ref> Then all the other references to this citation should work. Thank you. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Done Taken care of by AnomieBOT here. clpo13_(talk) 16:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

This source is a weekend tabloid report of interview which includes a great deal of subjective and POV content. E.g. On a number of occasions Hanson begins shouting at me, particularly when explanations are sought for why she keeps targeting people on the basis of their race. "I want a balance brought back into this country," she yells, as Pasquarelli pokes his big, bald head through her door for what must be the fourth time during our interview. This is not the sort of dispassionate sourcing we associate with encyclopedic verification.
The writer continually probes for intimate and potentially sensational quotes, e.g., ...she bought out his estimated $250,000 share in the house. How she managed to raise the money for that she will not say.. Then, there is a somewhat salacious treatment of the subject's sex life, marriages, children, etc, with use of pseudonyms for a husband and children.
Our BLP policy states 'Contentious material about living persons ...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.' In my view, much of the content sourced to David Leser's 1996 article is not fit for inclusion in WP, but let's discuss it. I wouldn't throw out the article altogether, but suggest that its place is in the "Further reading" section. Bjenks (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The Sydney Morning Herald is not a tabloid. David Leser is a Walkley-winning journalist. Wikipedia has to be NPOV, but the sources it uses don't. The style that you're objecting to is normal for a personal profile.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree with your first three points, but am still uncomfortable with some of the unnecessary details imported into that "early life" section. Maybe I'm too sensitive. What do others think? Bjenks (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I think some of those details could be removed.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Family Court

This article does not have enough on Hanson's long-time policies which criticise the Family Court. [4] --211.30.17.74 (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Then try writing it. Wikipedia is written by people like you. Orthogonal1 (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Pauline Hanson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100914111342/http://www.aph.gov.au:80/library/parl/38/mpsbyage.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/library/parl/38/mpsbyage.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629143605/http://www.australianpolitics.com/parties/onenation/immigration-policy-98.shtml to http://www.australianpolitics.com/parties/onenation/immigration-policy-98.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228093206/http://www.news.com.au:80/story/0,23599,22535794-2,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22535794-2,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100713000229/http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/1998-99/99rp09a.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/1998-99/99rp09a.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110319030848/http://www.aph.gov.au:80/library/pubs/rp/1998-99/99rp08a.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/1998-99/99rp08a.htm#Results
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100726113622/http://www.news.com.au:80/features/federal-election/pauline-hanson-considering-a-return-to-politics-if-tony-abbott-asks-her-to/story-e6frfllr-1225896285293 to http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/pauline-hanson-considering-a-return-to-politics-if-tony-abbott-asks-her-to/story-e6frfllr-1225896285293
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100217041734/http://womansday.ninemsn.com.au:80/celebrity/inthemag/1011631/pauline-hanson-says-goodbye-australia to http://womansday.ninemsn.com.au/celebrity/inthemag/1011631/pauline-hanson-says-goodbye-australia
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305072526/http://nla.gov.au:80/anbd.bib-an000041167021 to http://nla.gov.au/anbd.bib-an000041167021

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

They Vote For You site

I added Pauline Hanson's profile at They Vote For You because it is a site which tracks Australian politicians' voting records, and it is used on about 100 other politicians' pages to tell how they vote. I thought it was considered somewhat standard to include. In function, it is similar to the UK's Public Whip. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Clean up

With Pauline firmly back in the national spotlight - and apparently taking every advantage of it - it's time to tidy up this rather choppy article, which seems to have been used as a dumping ground for anything questionable, as supported by equally appropriate sources.

I've removed the "Partners" list from the info box. There doesn't seem to have been any discussion on this - someone just added stuff out of various gossip journals. None of the relationships seems to have gone beyond a few weeks, even by the dubious sources we were using. Correct me if I'm wrong, but "partners" would refer to defacto or similar relationships, rather than "sexual partners and one night stands", and if we lowered the bar that much, every politician would likely have a long and interesting list. Bob Hawke appears, according to Wikipedia, to have embraced but two women. --Pete (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this really needs a clean up. The structure doesn't make much sense. I don't see why the fraud conviction is under "Personal life". A lot of the text seems to be pro-Hanson.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Since no objection has been forthcoming, I have integrated the fraud case into her political career. I have tried to simplify the structure of that part of the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

cannibalism

My edit comment here was wrong - I missed the mention of cannibalism in "Published books" - but in any case the "Literature Supporting Pauline's Claims of Cannabalism" is massively WP:UNDUE in an article on Hanson. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

remove this with vengence the sourcing is unreliable, the work is that of a blocked editor Gnangarra 00:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

www.facebook.com/groups/PaulineHansonsOneNation

How do I add her facebook group to the page? http://www.facebook.com/groups/PaulineHansonsOneNation There doesn't appear to be any way of editing the content. Her social media posts are a major source of information and frequently quoted by the mainstream (now minor stream?) media. Only yesterday all the news and politrical tv programs were leading with one of her twitter posts. After looking over wikipedia I have hardly found any references to social media at all. It's as if Jimmy Wales is scared of competition and deleting them. There isn't some sort of ridiculous ban on the biggest source of news online is there? That would be hilarious. Wikipedia claims to be an open unbiased source of knowledge so where in the hell are the social media links? Seriously guys. I can't even find many external links to facebook or twitter news feeds! 203.13.3.78 (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

How do you add it? I'm sorry, but you don't. Since Facebook is not a reliable source, we do not link to it. See WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and its purpose is not to serve as a hub for these kinds of links. (The page is currently protected due to persistent vandalism.) Frickeg (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pauline Hanson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C23599%2C22535794-2%2C00.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120719202327/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QCA/2000/23.html to http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QCA/2000/23.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Article says Pauline Hanson was born in Australia, then later that she was born in England. Please fix.

Wikipedia says Hanson was born in Australia (QLD), then later says she was born in UK. 'the Court assumed she possessed because she had been born in Britain' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:6E59:A300:16F:CB59:F15:11CA (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The article never states that Hanson was born in the UK (or England). What it says is that "Heather Hill had been elected to this position, but the High Court of Australia ruled that, although she was an Australian citizen, she was ineligible for election to sit as a Senator because she had not renounced her British citizenship, which the Court assumed she possessed because she [Heather Hill] had been born in Britain." To clarify, the sentence begins by identifying the person that it's about. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Should it say "assumed"??? Isn't it just a fact she was a British citizen?--Jack Upland (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, she was, at the time. I've fixed it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2017

Could someone please add this information back into the "public opinion" section of the broader "racism allegations" section? It was removed for some reason and I'm not sure why that happened.

International outcry

Following Hanson's maiden speech her views received negative coverage across Asian news media in 1996, and National Party Deputy and Trade Minister, Tim Fischer, criticised the race "debate" initiated by Hanson, saying it was putting Australian exports and jobs at risk. Other ministers and state and territory leaders followed Fischer's lead in attacking Hanson. In December, then-Prime Minister of Malaysia Mahathir Mohamad, said he would recall more than 11,000 Malaysian students from Australia after a girl who returned from the country reported to Malaysian media that Asian students were becoming targets of racial abuse at car parks and bus stops in Melbourne.

In 1998, the resurgence of popularity of Hanson was met with disappointment in Asian media, with the South China Morning Post reporting, "The sudden resurgence of support for Australia’s obnoxious One Nation Party is disheartening, but should not come as a surprise". Her resignation from politics in 2002 was met with support from academics, politicians and the press across Asia. KP Waran, the former Executive Editor of the Malaysian newspaper, New Straits Times told the ABC, "good riddance to bad rubbish" while Singaporean, Dr. Bilveer Singh and the former adviser to former Indonesian president B.J. Habibie, Dewi Fortuna Anwar also expressed their agreement of Hanson's resignation. 121.214.43.60 (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: That text was removed in this revision with the edit summary "merge short paras, remove quotes and sentences about trivial things that were said, alleged or discussed. We want knowledge on Hanson, not information about what was said about related topics, see WP:NOTPROPAGANDA". I'm not inclined to re-add it based solely on your request. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment, just in the interest of fostering consensus, I agree with Kuyabribri that this removal was correct. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

References

@Kuyabribri: @Eggishorn: This following sentence is already published on the actual article: "After her election in 1996, an estimated 10,000 people marched in protest against racism in Melbourne, and other protests followed, while Anglican and Catholic church leaders warned that the controversy threatened the stability of Australia's multicultural society". So shouldn't at least some of this information be included in the public opinion section? She received widespread media coverage in Asia so maybe this sentence could be added to the "public opinion" section. "Following Hanson's maiden speech her views received negative coverage across Asian news media in 1996, and National Party Deputy and Trade Minister, Tim Fischer, criticised the race "debate" initiated by Hanson, saying it was putting Australian exports and jobs at risk." (121.219.1.176 (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC))

References

@121.219.1.176:, I see no reason why foreign reactions contribute anything to understanding Hanson other than to attempt to give weight to making judgments against her. WP:NOTADVOCACY still applies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: I'm not trying to make judgments against her, I'm merely stating facts. I just thought that it would be important to include that part in because the negative reception she was receiving in Asia at the time received significant media coverage here in Australia. The Australian media and consequently the general public spoke about her reputation and Australia's reputation in Asia. Many people were worried that Australia's reputation was being ruined in Asia. I think it's rather important to include that part in because of that. When she came back into politics last year, the media spoke about her past and one thing they spoke about was the Asian media reception towards her and how it might be different now because she's now talking about Muslims. I think it's really important to include that part in, most Australians who lived during that period or learned about it know that the reception she received in Asia was quite important and notable. There's a reason why there are many sources including books that speak about her reception in Asia. As I said, I think it's rather important to at least include that one sentence about it.(110.149.116.28 (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC))

@110.149.116.28:, then you need to create a consensus that supports inclusion. You have asked for inclusion of this material. Two editors have explained why this material is, in our opinion, not supported by policy. If this was an unprotected articles and you had just added it normally, it probably would have been reverted. The normal editing cycle would then put you where you are now anyway: needing to discuss it to gain the support of your fellow editors. I suggest opening a new discussion that does not use the edit request template to argue for what you think should be included, supported by the sources above, and see what traction you get. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Okay. (110.149.116.28 (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC))

Pending changes

As this article is frequently subjected to vandalism of types which has to be revision deleted, I've applied pending changes to it. Please let me know, or post at WP:RFPP for other admins' consideration, if you have concerns about this or think that it should be removed now or in the future. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Structure

The structure relating to Hanson's political career should be basically chronological. It makes no sense to separate "Political offices" and "Racism allegations" from "Political career". Also, it makes no sense to put the fraud conviction in "Personal life". I fixed the fraud issue last year (see above under "Clean up") but it has been reversed.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2018

whoever wrote this statement dos not understand the process of acting on agenda question: "On October 2018, Hanson moved a motion of It's OK to be white. the motion got 28 votes in favour and 31 against."

a motion is merely a move to bring the question to vote. It still needs a second. And every action item on an agenda is a question.

The following might be more appropriate: After Hanson motioned "It's OK to be white" at the October 2018 meeting, the question failed with 28 votes in favour and 31 against." 2605:E000:9149:8300:8C8B:FAD8:8CC4:8059 (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Not done: A review of sources indicate that Hanson introduced the motion; she didn't just call the question to end debate. Based on that, the statement is a fair representation of the sources. —C.Fred (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

When you motion and it is seconded then automatically debate is ended and the item goes to vote. So in effect by her motion it was a the start of ending debate and with a second going to vote. It is so wonderful o have such redundancy in WP.2605:E000:9149:8300:8C8B:FAD8:8CC4:8059 (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Australia doesn't have discussion in Parliament? Interesting. —C.Fred (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I checked the Hansard. Hanson introduced the motion and then spoke for a minute on its behalf.[5] —C.Fred (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

But you seem to be accepting that you cannot move a motion but you can move a question or agenda item. To move is to motion and the item in querstion is "It's OK to be white". "It's OK to be white" is not a motion. That is a parliamentary procedure.2605:E000:9149:8300:8C8B:FAD8:8CC4:8059 (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

So, change as thus, then? "On 15 October 2018, Hanson moved introduced a motion of for the Senate to acknowledge anti-white racism and that It's OK to be white." —C.Fred (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand what is being missed here. Do you understand that a motion is the same as to move/moved? Because if you do not then there is little chance for the following to be understood. Motion is an action, not a thing. "It's OK to be white" is a thing such as a bill, legislation, resolution, proposition. These are not motions. In legislative parlance these are things. A motion is an action. Things can be in action but a thing is not action. So, you cannot introduce a motion because it is an action. From what it sounds like, she is introducing a question for the body to act on even if that means it tables it for inaction. The motion or action is to vote on the matter in question. "It's OK to be white" is not a motion; it is legislation--legislation can never be a motion.
There is no need to bring all the senate stuff into the statement of you say Senator Hansen ...... Someone from that body is the only person able to act in that body therefore to asscoaite the body with how she is referred condences to statement.2605:E000:9149:8300:8C8B:FAD8:8CC4:8059 (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement

"On 15 October 2018, Hanson moved a motion of It's OK to be white. The motion got 28 votes in favour and 31 against."

This statement is fundamentally inaccurate and is using the wrong terminology. The issue, question, or agenda item is "It's OK to be white". It is not a motion. In parliamentary procedure to move is to motion to consider what is at hand. They are the same purpose. So to say someone "moved a motion" is confusing an action for an item. First of all, if it were true it would be a redundancy in expression and since it is not true it is inaccurate and confusing. And if this is what the source says then the reliability of the source is in question. Maybe these/this reporter(s)) did not realise just what it was that they wrote?2605:E000:9149:8300:8C8B:FAD8:8CC4:8059 (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Article changed to clarify that Hanson tabled the motion. She did speak first on it, after all. —C.Fred (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

You do not table motions. You table bills/legislation/questions. Again, motion is an action not a thing.2605:E000:9149:8300:8C8B:FAD8:8CC4:8059 (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Fine. It now says that Hanson moved for the Senate to acknowledge. I mean, here are her exact words: "I move: That the Senate acknowledges: (a) the deplorable rise of anti-white racism and attacks on Western civilisation; and (b) that it is okay to be white."[6] —C.Fred (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

There still is the problem with using motion instead of what what was the item: question, bill, legislation? To you it may not matter but there is a difference between motion and question, bill, legislation.2605:E000:9149:8300:8C8B:FAD8:8CC4:8059 (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It is a motion. That is literally how it is identified in the Hansard; it's in a section of motions. —C.Fred (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

That is the same as saying "actions". I doubt that replacing motion with action would be acceptable. It has to be remembered that in legislative proceedings not every action is considered on track to be as a potential law. Much of what happens is political maneuverings therefore they are not bills or legilation--they are just part of the action--motions.2605:E000:9149:8300:8C8B:FAD8:8CC4:8059 (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Right. She wanted the Senate to acknowledge it. The Senate said no, 31-28. —C.Fred (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

As I said earlier, the point has been missed. If all that happened is that the senate did not want to consider the "whatever" then the statement is even less useful explanation of the process.2605:E000:9149:8300:8C8B:FAD8:8CC4:8059 (talk) 06:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The Senate did consider it and voted not to make the acknowledgment that Hanson sought. —C.Fred (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2018

Add Category:Pauline Hanson Uriahheep228 (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Why? -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 15:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: Added it for now since she does have her own category. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 22:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)