Talk:Fraser Anning

Edit Protection

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

Date of birth

Reset his vandalized date of birth from 1991 to 1949.

"Final Solution"

In this sentence,

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

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

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

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

article for party

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

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

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

Christchurch Terrorist Shootings

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

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

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

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

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

Bio description as "racist"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@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)

BLP

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

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

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

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

Egging incident needs citation!

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

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

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

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

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

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

the 'recieved criticism' intro paragraph getting a little weasely

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

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

Religion?

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

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

Neil Erikson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Guardian:

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

The Age:

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

Sydney Morning Herald:

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

The ABC:

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

SBS:

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

News.com:

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

Bloomberg:

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

The Financial Review:

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

The Australian:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cultural marxism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

How about this, with primary and secondary sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

StAnselm's BLP argument

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended content

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

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

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

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

Extended content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compromise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question about proposal and sources

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

Proposal 1: Here is what I propose to add specifically into Fraser Anning's maiden speech segment. The "referred to the antisemitic conspiracy theory known as cultural Marxism" part as originally written by Bacondrum before this whole editwarring hubbub about BLP started to begin with, with the word antisemitic immediately followed by a numbered citation of a selection of the collapsed sources in the above sections such as the SPLC report and the "Alt right's meme is 100 years old" article, and with the paragraph in particular followed by the news article which was my first post on the talk page, detailing Fraser Anning's full speech and thus proving he did say "cultural Marxism is a literal truth", then it is followed with the "Gender identity garbage" criticism of his and the article carries on as usual. The specific sources to cite for the "Antisemitic" part are:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/cultural-marxism-anti-semitism.html, https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/cultural-marxism-catching, and https://www.smh.com.au/world/cultural-marxism--the-ultimate-postfactual-dog-whistle-20171102-gzd7lq.html, as for Anning's speech itself, the source for that is: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/full-text-senator-fraser-anning-s-maiden-speech and https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/while-all-muslims-are-not-terrorists-certainly-all-terrorists-these-days-are-muslims-senator-anning-said/news-story/c0753644cfccdda0394619e6f9dc01b5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Fey (talk • contribs) 09:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but that would qualify as unallowable synthesis and a BLP violation, as I have pointed out earlier.

The aim is not to pick-and-chose words from Anning's speech that wikipedia editors deem to be significant ("cultural Marxism" in this instance), and then to add a descriptive gloss (eg, "antisemitic conspiracy theory") that wikipedia editors, based on their reading of other wikipedia pages, think is appropriate. Instead we need to find secondary sources that analyze or comment on Anning's use of those words, and then summarize what these sources say. Abecedare (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare, does the Sydney Morning Herald article on cultural marxism and the SBS transcript of Anning's speech count as "unthinkable synthesis in all cases", or is it aloud to source the antisemitic undertone of said conspiracy theory (Which we don't cite a Wikipedia article for, mind you. We are citing the secondary and primary sources used to create said section on cultural marxism to begin with, which is how research on any facts Wikipedia states is done. Wikipedia is just a convenient overview of a particular subject. The sources and references are the core that allows said article to exist per WP:SOURCE) with only the SMH article and nothing else? Both sources are Australian, which do adequately reflect the politics of said nation unlike foreign commentary on cultural marxism, so it should reflect "british cultural marxism" as Anselm repeatedly claims ad nauseam too, so hopefully, any concerns of synthesis would be solved with this modification to Proposal 1. Adrian Fey (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Adrian Fey:, the problem with citing, primary sources such as the text of the Anning's speech is that it is wikipedia editors who are then deciding what part/words of the speech are worthy of taking note. And the problem with using the SMH article (which pre-dates Anning's speech and does not even mention him), is that it is then wikipedia editors who are deciding the intended meaning of Anning's use of the term. Those both are no-no's.

In contrast: we can easily establish that Anning's use of "final solution" was both (a) noteworthy (because so many sources, even far from Australia, noted its use), and (b) an allusion to the Nazi use of the term (because that's what the non-on-wiki analysts said!). What we need, as I said above, are similar sources on Anning's use of "cultural Marxism". If such sources are not available, as seems to be the case, then the topic is simply not worth mentioning in the article (see WP:DUE). Abecedare (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's not get sidetracked with proving that cultural Marxism is antisemitic or a conspiracy theory. All we need to do here is show that Anning referred to cultural Marxism in his speech since all we are doing is describing cultural Marxism when Anning uses the phrase. His other remarks are not relevant to the necessary changes. We should not be synthesising two sources, the first that Anning used the phrase and the second that the phrase is antisemitic/conspiracy theory.

I'll make this as simple as possible. This should be resolved as to amend the second paragraph to;

Anning holds far-right and anti-immigration views and has faced criticism for his remarks on Islam, including his use of the Nazi euphemism for genocide, calling for a "final solution to the immigration problem" in his maiden speech and referring to "cultural Marxism", a Nazi-era conspiracy theory with antisemitic undertones. Shortly after the Christchurch mosque shootings in New Zealand, which blamed them on "the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate".

This is supported by the sources already used for the paragraph. I have also amalgamated the first two quoted phrases, since that is how he spoke both of those phrases, 'final solution' and 'immigration problem', and not separately. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

This is supported by the sources already used for the paragraph. Can you point to which sources discuss Anning's use of "cultural Marxism" and refer to it as "a Nazi-era conspiracy theory with antisemitic undertones"? Abecedare (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The sources that refer to cultural Marxism as how I described, a Nazi-era conspiracy theory with antisemitic undertones are supported by the existing sources on the topic. Just to be clear, I am not attributing conspiracy theory or antisemitism to Anning here, which is why I have purposefully distinguished it. The primary source should be the transcript of the speech as reported by SBS. However, the passage should refer to "cultural Marxists" as this is how he expressed it, three times. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

...existing sources on the topic is not helpful. Please re-read my question and explanation of what type of sources would be needed to comply with wikipedia policies. We can resume discussion if/when such sources become available. Abecedare (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Abecedare, I'd like to know where that leaves things here, especially since I think it's clear the sort of source you're after doesn't exist. Is it appropriate to close the discussion? Is there a consensus? It appears to me that there are three editors here who plan to insert these words when the page protection expires, and I don't want to be blocked for reverting it. StAnselm (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

A blue link to cultural Marxism and the SBS transcript should do for now. I'm not proposing anything that would require a source say that Anning is antisemitic, only that the conspiracy theory has those undertones.

While I respect the courtesy of StAnselm, it is worrying that they seem to undertake to violate 3RR and remove what a consensus here has determined not to be a violation of BLP and determined to be in accordance with what is appropriate for the article. They should be a full participant of these discussions, and not someone who action would need to be taken against. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I have tried to explain in this section, why the proposals that I have seen so far (specifically Adrian's and Onetwothreeip's), violate WP:BLP and other wikipedia policies. If editors try to re-insert such text when the current protection expires, they'll face being blocked or topic-banned (it would be best to report such violations to me, El_C or at WP:ANI instead of repeatedly reverting them). To ensure that this is clear, I'll notify the participating editors of the applicable discretionary sanctions if they haven't been alerted of this earlier.

Of course editors are free to discuss other proposals here on the talkpage, especially if more sources become available. Abecedare (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem is, Abecedare, that you have so far not cleared up the reason why said edits would be rejected under any circumstances, most notably how exactly would mentioning cultural marxism is a unsourced conspiracy theory of the fringe-right "violate" BLP (Which sounds like a bad case of WP:CRYBLP in some cases). How exactly would that defame him personally or cause harm to his reputation? Like Onetwothreeip said, we are not stating that Anning himself is antisemitic, indeed, one can be completely unaware of what he/she is saying is is a falsehood used to justify antisemitism in the past, we only said that the whole theory of cultural marxism has antisemitic undertones at the very least, as evidenced by the flurry of legitimate sources I've cited on this topic, which are not a Wikipedia article and are not from this website at all. If not even specific scholarly analyses on why cultural marxism is antisemitic satisfy your specific redlines, then what will? Because it seems extremely peculiar on how exactly sources already explaining cultural marxism are somehow "syntheses" every time one tries to cite them to explain why it has antisemitic overtones (Again not describing Anning himself as an antisemite, hence we don't need these arbitrary georestrictions), and only Australian media mentioning the exact same thing are permissible. This whole debate is confusing if I am perfectly frank, and I fear that we are at an impasse in case two proposals are indeed "haram" for whatever reason. Adrian Fey (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Just to be clear, I'm only advocating that we amend the article in a way that does not violate BLP, to read the following:

Anning holds far-right and anti-immigration views and has faced criticism for his remarks on Islam, including his use of the Nazi euphemism for genocide, calling for a "final solution to the immigration problem" in his maiden speech and referring to "cultural Marxism", a Nazi-era conspiracy theory with antisemitic undertones. Shortly after the March 2019 Christchurch mosque shootings in New Zealand, Anning released a statement blaming the attacks on "the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate".

This is not making any claim about Anning other than the words he said, which are attributable to many sources already in the article, but particularly the transcript of the speech by SBS. I also do not support any synthesis of sources, we should only report strictly what the sources say, as my proposal does. I'm very much open to suggestions as to how this paragraph can be further improved on, since this is not intended to be a final version. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this different from the proposal discussed earlier? I still see the same problems of due weight and synthesis w.r.t. to the "referring to "cultural Marxism", a Nazi-era conspiracy theory with antisemitic undertones." bit. Abecedare (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Please do tell me what those problems are, and what words you would like to change in that. Again I'm not saying that has to be the final version, it's open to everyone including yourself and StAnselm to suggest changes. Anning did in fact refer to cultural Marxism (three times explicitly, among other references to Marxism). This just explains what it is, without labelling Anning anything. It's not universally known to potential readers what the term means, or that it even is a term. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Compromise for now

This is going nowhere. I share you're frustrations good sirs, believe me. If/when some quality analysis comes along that explicitly makes the connection between Anning's use of that vile term and it's antisemitic connotations, we can make the connection then (I know it's frustrating, we all know what was meant by "cultural Marxism" and it's disgusting, but he's dog whistling and no one in the media or academia has explicitly called him on it, yet). As StAnselm and Abecedare have pointed out, we just don't have a quality academic paper or news article that makes the connection, doesn't matter that it's blindingly obvious to us. How about this for a compromise, we note that he used the phrase, and leave it there for now (we all know what he was referring to, and most readers will also, at least it's out there that he said it).

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

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

The alternative is no mention at all, StAnselm and Abecedare are correct in that it doesn't matter that the antisemitic undertones are there, we have no acceptable citation and as such it's inclusion doesn't cut it. This compromise would put the BLP and improper synthesis debate to rest while allowing the reader to be informed in regard to the language used (keeping in mind that most people do know it's a racist trope). Bacondrum (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• I haven't checked all the details carefully but I think this is a good foundation to build upon. A few notes:
  1. The Guardian article is not the right source for the "cultural Marxism" sentence, but there are a couple of previously discussed sources that quote the relevant sentence from Anning's speech that you can use instead. You may need to tweak the proposed sentence a bit so that it reflects what the final source you cite says about that part of the speech.
  2. Personally I don't have an issue with wiki-linking cultural Marxism so that the interested reader can, if they wish, learn more about the subject.
  3. (minor) Just as you introduce Katter as "Anning's party leader Bob Katter", it would be good to introduce Pauline Hanson, so that the reader has some idea as to why they should care about her opinion.
  4. The Guardian article is the right source for the last sentence in the proposed text.

Abecedare (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the cultural Marxism sentence is in the wrong place, actually. The sentences before and after concern the final solution. So perhaps CM should go in the preceding paragraph. StAnselm (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Well, considering that it's been several months already and not a single human being in the

entire Australian mediascape has called out Fraser Anning's painfully obvious dogwhistling (Like seeing a elephant in the room but not bothering to say it to anyone for hundreds of days), it's fair to say that no one there will call him out on it anytime soon (Possibly for decades), either because Australian society is not yet adequately informed about the antisemitic links, or because they think it should be so obvious it doesn't need explicit calling-outs. And since already existing sources (Including academic analyses) do not satisfy Anselm and Abecedare's redlines (Apparently since they are "not australian" and "not mentioning Anning" hence they are unreliable and shouldn't be used to describe the theory as antisemitic) and watering it all the way down to just "cultural marxism" alone would only serve to legitimize his screeds and thus unwittintly abet obfuscation of information, we might as well just blank the disputed paragraph entirely and get it over with, considering that Anselm wouldn't accept anything else than denying it mention and the alternative, AKA "sources made in Australia only" (Australocentrism at it's best) do not exist and will likely not for a indefinite amount of time, the only way to break the deadlock seems to settle around blanking it. Adrian Fey (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% in regard to believing Anning said it and meant it in an antisemetic sense, the guy is a closeted Nazi, it's absolutely f*#ked that Anning can dog whistle antisemitic filth and get away with it, but StAnselm and Abecedare are acting in good faith, they're not saying he didn't do it, they are saying no individual source says he used the phrase in an antisemetic context (maybe there is something that does, we've just got to look harder, perhaps visit the library rather than just look online) and they are correct. It's an improper synthesis to use one the transcript of his speech with an article about an English politician being criticised for the use of the same phrase. I made that improper synthesis, but can now see it doesn't cut it. Surely mentioning what he said is better than pretending he never said it...most people will know what was meant, especially we are wiki-linking cultural Marxism so that the interested reader can learn more about the subject...we just can't say it explicitly without an appropriate citation. Bacondrum (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Alright, how about this version (sans the Hanson bit, I couldn't figure out where to place that suggestion):

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

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

I hope that can get us to a consensus. 22:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Bacondrum (talk)

I'm happy with it. StAnselm (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Mostly fine, it just needs a brief definition of cultural Marxism after that is mentioned. Some other minor clarifications as well, like Nazi Germany instead of Nazi Party. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

... and round and round we go. We're not including a definition of "gender fluidity garbage" either. StAnselm (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Nobody has argued for including a definition of "gender fluidity". That does not need a definition, Anning was only referring to what he sees as gender being fluid. It's not as if "cultural Marxism" is simply a cultural expression of Marxism. We only need to define things when it would be helpful for the reader, like with "final solution". Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Except we should not pretend to know what Anning meant by the phrase (since we don't have secondary source to tell us). StAnselm (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: MOS:LWQ says "Be conservative when linking within quotations; link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author." That indicates that "cultural Marxism" should not be wikilinked. StAnselm (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

What else would "cultural marxism" mean? For the love of God, I couldn't find any definition in the entire dictionary other than the rightist conspiracy theory used to smear their bete noires, nor did I find any other source utilizing "cultural marxism" in a non-conspiratorial fashion, and considering Anning is proudly and unabashedly far-right, the chances of him referring to cultural marxism in any other way than the wikilinked conspiracy theory is virtually zilch. Let's be fair, Anselm. The only way we can satisfy your ultra-hardline redlines is to blank the paragraph entirely and give it the "damnatio memoriae" treatment, am I correct? I mean, you rejected every single compromise we offered up to now, and considering that butchering it to just "cultural marxism" without any short explanation at all. would just lend legitimacy to his screeds, it seems the only option is full blank, AKA the current revision of the article as it stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Fey (talk • contribs) 07:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy with that compromise, but I don't think Bacondrum will be. StAnselm (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

(And it's not really fair on him considering how hard he has worked for a compromise.) StAnselm (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Out of interest, which dictionary are you using? I note that Wiktionary does not mention anti-Semitism but does mention some academic uses. StAnselm (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested he meant it in the academic way, including himself. It is more correct to characterise it as a conspiracy theory rather than something antisemitic, although it has antisemitic undertones and I have sought to describe it as such. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Alright, one more time sans wikilink:

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

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

Can we please just agree to this compromise and allow editing again? Bacondrum (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Mostly fine, but needs cultural Marxism wikilinked and a brief definition of cultural Marxism. I don't see any of my suggestions incorporated into your proposal, only StAnselm's. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Friend, I want your suggestions added, believe me, I know that Anning meant it and I want those who read about him to know the utterly vile and disgusting ideology he stands for. But we can't add it until we have a single, reliable, secondary source that backs the assertion. I haven't been able to find any unfortunately. It probably will turn up in academic papers sooner rather than later...We all knew Cottrell and co were Nazi's when they first appeared in the news, but it took a couple of years before the media started reporting them as such, I waited and waited until the truth came out about them, now they are described as exactly what they are. Bacondrum (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I have not made a suggestion that Anning was promoting wilfully a conspiracy theory. Maybe you have done so, but I have not. I only have sought to provide a brief definition for the purposes of context as to the meaning of a certain phrase, just as we would do with Anning's or anybody else's use of the phrase "final solution". We have never required the subject of the article to confirm how they intended to use any phrase. I am disappointed in the political bias that you and Adrian Fey are expressing on this talk page. A brief description of cultural Marxism, and indeed the particular words that he used, should be included in this article on the basis of being a comprehensive encyclopaedic article, not to denounce him even if you believe his own words do so. I completely disassociate from having any opinion on Anning and I think you should sincerely reflect on why you are contributing to Wikipedia. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

So be disappointed, everyone has bias, some are just more honest about it than others. Put up or shut up - provide a reliable citation. Bacondrum (talk) 08:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It is not a problem that people have political opinions, we all do, there's just no need to use them here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I won't mention it again. I just don't want to be accused of obfuscating known facts about politics that I personally abhor. We need a citation, not accusation.

So, that's enough total and utter irrelevancies (unless someone can find a SINGLE, RELIABLE, SECONDARY SOURCE to end the bloody cultural Marxism debate) :

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

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

Can we please just close the discussion? Support or oppose? No meandering debate or accusations about who supports what and where or about anything else, please. Yay or nay? Bacondrum (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't have to be closed. I support most of the substance but with the alterations I outlined, like an internal link and a brief description of cultural Marxism for context and minor changes such as using Nazi Germany instead of Nazi Party. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You don't think it's a problem having full protection on the page? Come on, this arguement is stopping others from editing. I personally feel a bit shitty about that. Lets wind it up, close it, compromise...whatever needs to be done to end this debate. Bacondrum (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the vast majority of what you proposed, if not all. I also suggested further alterations. Unless you're suggesting I agree completely with your proposal and suggest nothing further, I cannot see how what I have said cannot be more in the spirit of compromise. Considered with what I have suggested, I generally support what you propose. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Support, with Onetwothreeip's suggested alterations and a wikilink to cultural marxism so that those who are interested can learn what the hell is it even about. Otherwise, 'Nay', to prevent accidental legitimization of what Anning said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Fey (talk • contribs) 20:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Support I also support with Onetwothreeip's suggested alterations and a wikilink to cultural marxism, I've supported that version or similar from the start, but that's going to be contested by Abecedare and StAnselm, so I'd also support the version I've proposed as a compromise. I'm done with this now. Bacondrum (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Neither Abecedare or StAnselm, or both combined, have a veto over consensus. Very few discussions ever need to be closed, most simply finish when nobody responds further. We can agree to a certain addition while altering it further, and successive edits can continue indefinitely. I also agree with Adrian Fey in that not explaining what certain phrases mean, and are not generally known by the public, can violate WP:NPOV by presenting Anning's statements as normal. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

It might be helpful, User:Abecedare, if you indicate whether or not you consider yourself WP:INVOLVED in this discussion. StAnselm (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@StAnselm: I am acting on this page as an uninvolved admin only with the aim helping guide discussion, preventing disruption and, most importantly, keeping the article free of BLP violations. As I sanity check I did ask for a second opinion at BLP noticeboard and the advice there too was to keep the 'cultural Marxism' bit out until the issue is receives more significant coverage. Abecedare (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Support with wikilink. I disagree with how Wikipedia currently implies that "Cultural Marxism" is only used to refer to the conspiracy theory, but that's a discussion to be had elsewhere and not a good enough reason not to link to it. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I’m absolutely astonished at this discussion. It’s like 2 or 3 dogs continuing to fight over one bone for 48 hours. Boscaswell talk 11:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Support with wikilink Can that please be an end to this? There are 4 supports and I can't see any to the contrary. I'm about to revert StAnselm's reversion of Bacondrum's final edit this morning, and then provide a wikilink to the word Cultural Marxism. I'm hoping that WP:OWN won't come into play here. Peace.Boscaswell talk 23:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

We don't normally wikilink within quotations. But you've misinterpreted the supports - at least two editors only supported the proposal as modified by a description, which other editors reject. StAnselm (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Nobody has said they only support a wikilink for cultural Marxism if it comes with a description. It can't be any more obvious that the consensus here agrees with the wikilink. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Adrian Fey did. I thought you did too - you never indicated you would agree to the no-description compromise. StAnselm (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not at all clear there that Adrian Fey is against internal linking the term cultural Marxism. I recommend asking contributors for clarification before interpreting their comments. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

That reads as four supports with wikilink to me, no oppose. Bacondrum (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Protection

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

Protected edit request on 3 April 2019 Suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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)

StAnselm's anti-consensus edits

I hesitate to make this about one editor in particular but it's come to that point. I don't disagree with all of their edits but their actions are consistently being reverted by numerous editors and it's clear that they do not have the support of consensus on the talk page for their vision of how they want the article to be written. Now they have decided to take their disagreements with other editors on their user talk pages, including mine, but this issue should clearly be contained to this talk page. They have broken WP:3RR more than once now and this disruptive behaviour is not helping anybody, certainly not the readers of this article. There are real concerns that some editors, particularly new and IP editors, are making non-neutral claims about Anning, but seeking to remove all content about Anning that is controversial will absolutely not help. This pattern of applying for the page to be protected to administrator-only after they have restored the article to their own preferred version is also unhelpful and deeply concerning. Pinging involved editors Bacondrum, Boscaswell, Adrian Fey, and the administrator who protected the article El_C and inadvertently cemented StAnselm's edits. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Disappointing that even this relatively neutral description of "cultural Marxism" was reverted without adequate reasoning, considering that the word "canard" does not imply someone is an antisemite (As we debated earlier which sparked this whole controversy) and it only means that something is unfounded, without any legitimate evidence, or misleading, per the definition according to the Oxford English Dictionary:

​canard: "a false report or piece of information that is intended to deceive people."

Considering that there is virtually zero empirical evidence (Original research doesn't count for obvious reasons) that "cultural Marxism" as described by far-right bloggers, commentators, and politicians actually exists, nor were it's "core tenets" and "prophecies" confirmed at any point, it is fair to describe Anning's use of the term "cultural marxism" as an unfounded canard, whether or not said theory is also antisemitic. It is even more erroneous since the fact it is a canard was verified with adequate sources and none of them was a poor or questionable source (All of them were either academic analyses or reports by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that monitors far-right extremism and hate groups). Adrian Fey (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: I’m not wishing to get into lengthy exchanges, such as the astonishingly long and involved argy-bargy about whether or not it was acceptable to wikilink the term cultural Marxism. Neither am I supporting adding anything further to wikilinking that term. I was certain that a consensus had been agreed to, that merely wikilinking it would be sufficient and we could all by way of compromise agree to that.

@Adrian Fey: Please understand that going overboard with detail about why someone might think that something in a speech of Anning’s or some social media output of his is bad is not the way to go. We just state what is, dispassionately, and in terms that are neither colloquial nor obscure (eg. canard - meaningless to 99% of the population.)

All that having been said, @El C: it looks as if it could be argued that @StAnselm: has been bending over backwards to eliminate any material which a supporter of Anning would consider incorrect or perhaps even embarrassing, to the extent over time that some might consider WP:OWN to have been violated. For example, I don’t think it is acceptable just to revert an edit which adds additional material because a non-colloquial term or two has been used on it, and then say that it can go back in if that term has been altered. Surely, Wikipedia is a collaborative project? We are meant to co-operate with one another, not get into ridiculous edit wars, as if we and no-one else on the page knows the correct way to go about editing. It is, therefore, far, far more useful to just alter those terms and smile and get on with other things. Peace. Boscaswell talk 05:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

addendum @Onetwothreeip: I gotta say that this edit being the very same that St Anselm pinged you about on your talk page, is pretty dire, and simply not worth defending. Best to have let it be in this case? I actually had no idea why canard meant, so I don’t think there can’t be very many who do. Why argue for the inclusion of something which next to no readers of Wikipedia will understand? Peace. Boscaswell talk 05:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how exactly is the word "canard" obscure, Anselm, considering it's readily being used to describe common fallacies and myths utilized by political extremists and is a synonym for the word myth, and is in no way so unknown (Like many latin phrases or Old and Middle English as an example) that only an erudite expert on the topic could understand it, especially with the added adjective "unfounded", which implies something is not backed by evidence and is most likely an falsehood, so even if one may not know full details about the word "canard", then he/she will infer from unfounded and the following sources that it must mean a allegation, a myth, or simply something not backed by facts. The "99% sees it as meaningless" figure is also little more than original research, which, if not properly peer-reviewed, reproduced, and proven with complementing material, is just as good as a old wives tale if we apply the scientific method. Alternatively, if "canard" is indeed too complicated for a layman to fully understand, I have no problem replacing it with either "unfounded allegation", "unfounded talking point", "unfounded myth", or "unfounded theory". Adrian Fey (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Boscaswell I don't agree with "canard" being included in the article. What's happened here is that StAnselm has removed not only the wikilinking of cultural Marxism but the phrase entirely, and then went to get the page protected on the basis that there was edit warring on the article, even though they were the only editor arguing for and reverting to what they wanted the page to be.

If we all agree that cultural Marxism should be mentioned and wikilinked, then why isn't it there? If we do agree on that then that should be placed into the article immediately, and then we can discuss what more to include, if anything. It's pretty clear that StAnselm is the only editor who has argued against describing cultural Marxism. An example of their bad faith which seems to be ignored is them supporting a "compromise" that includes cultural Marxism being wikilinked, and then afterwards citing a guideline and insisting it shouldn't be wikilinked. All of the disputes on the talk page have been one person against all of the other participants, which is absolutely ridiculous. It's possible for there to be content in the article which StAnselm or any single particular editor doesn't think should be there. Consensus does not require unanimity, but that is effectively what is being forced here. I find it highly disruptive when they make their three reverts a day and then on that basis get the page admin protected for edit warring. I sincerely believe this editor needs to reflect on whether they should be editing this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip maybe there’s a problem with the cache on my trusty iphone, but if not, cultural Marxism is still in the article, wikilinked.

I think that - broadly-speaking - we are in alignment. Which is why I pinged the admin who froze the article and drew his attention to what I thought perhaps StAnselm was doing. I hope that he’ll consider removing the total edit protection sooner than it’s automatic expiry date of 30 April.

Adrian Fey it was me who wrote (above) about 99% not understanding the term ‘canard’. Be careful before describing cultural Marxism in the article as ‘meaningless’, or any similar word. It needs to be generally understood that it is before describing it as such in a Wikipedia article, even though you may come up with lots of refs which say that it is. In doing so you’d be in danger of adding opinion to the words Anning spoke. So it’s best left alone and unexplained, other than via the wikilink, IMO. There are far bigger fish to fry, aren’t there? Peace. Boscaswell talk 08:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm referring to cultural Marxism being mentioned in the lead section, as it originally was. There was never any consensus or even proposal to move it to another section. There should certainly be a brief description of cultural Marxism, since this is not something widely known and we don't want to give the impression that he is criticising some aspect of actually existing Marxism. Something like "cultural Marxism, a far-right conspiracy theory". Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

---

@StAnselm: why are you not participating in the above discussion, at all? I am considering just unprotecting the article and topic-banning you from it for a while. El_C 13:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Two reasons, mainly: (a) I was away from my computer all day yesterday (as you can see from my contributions); (b) per Wikipedia:Defend each other I was hoping others would speak up showing how ridiculous User:Onetwothreeip's comments were (which User:Boscaswell did to some degree.) So here are my thoughts:

1. Onetwothreeip has little to no understanding of what WP:CONSENSUS means. Let's go through what happened. There was a clear consensus on the talk page to include a mention of Cultural Marxism, but with no description. (As User:Abecedare patiently explained many times, to include this without an explicit secondary source is a BLP violation.) I know User:Adrian Fey disagreed with this consensus position, but I had thought Onetwothreeip accepted. It seems like now he did not.
2. Adrian Fey then adds content calling Cultural Marxism a canard. This is clearly going against the talk page consensus (since it's a BLP violation). I revert it. Onetwothreeip restores it. I revert it again and ask for page protection (per this advice). So Onetwothreeip is way off beam calling my edit "anti-consensus". So I guess I don't think I have a case to answer. Onetwothreeip restoration of disputed content was unconscionable edit-warring. He has refused to accept Abecedare's comments about the necessity to include a source specifically talking about Anning's use of the term, and is imagining the consensus to be the opposite of what it actually is. StAnselm (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, but needing to protect it twice in such a short span does not sit well with me. I want to lift protection as soon as possible, so please make an effort to be around. El_C 21:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how it's true that you were away from your computer but that you wanted others to defend you. This isn't about one edit of yours, it's a pattern of behaviour on this article and its talk page, as I've outlined. I don't see anything to indicate Boscaswell calling my comments ridiculous, they gave their valid input.

When it comes to what was "agreed", I think you're wilfully obfuscating this. You're arguing that because at that time when you were challenging "cultural Marxism" being wikilinked, they somehow didn't support having a description there when they were supporting the wikilink being restored. I think you're admitting now that you misunderstood what consensus had decided, and hadn't decided.

What's obvious here is that to you, "consensus position" has to mean something that you agree with, or it's not the consensus position. You've attempted to make it seem like there was some deal where you would accept an internal link to cultural Marxism (you personally think it shouldn't be wikilinked) and that everyone else would accept not to make any edits to further clarify cultural Marxism. I'm all for accomodating dissenting views in talk page discussions but this is absurd, you're trying to put something in the article that you don't even want to be there in order to stop what everyone else wants to be there.

Earlier you linked something to a comment by Adrian Fey that you said supported your "no-description" view, but what you linked to explicitly said they agreed to my proposed description. Now you're claiming that Abecedare advised you to "revert it again" but I clicked on that link and it says it would be best to report such violations to me, El_C or at WP:ANI instead of repeatedly reverting them). This part is also inexplicable, "this is clearly going against the talk page consensus (since it's a BLP violation)". I don't want BLP violations on this article, but you're removing a lot more when you say you're removing something that violates BLP. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

(1) Boscaswell called your edit "pretty dire". (2) Let's go over this one more time: there is no consensus to include a description of cultural Marxism. Without a reference explicitly linkiing it to Anning, it's a BLP violation. (3) The wikilink issue is irrelevant, but just to be clear: I personally would prefer it not wikilinked, but was happy to accept the wikilink for the sake of compromise. (4) No, I did not say Abecedare advised me to revert again: he advised me not to edit war, which is why I asked for page protection. And that was because it seemed to me you were going to keep on re-inserting the anti-consensus BLP violations. StAnselm (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

They are referring to an edit that I reverted to, not my own edit. I agree with Boscaswell, and it wouldn't have taken much to remove the dire parts. It's pretty simple, just remove the BLP violations, don't use it as an opportunity to remove whatever you want from the article without any possible challenge simply because you happen to be removing BLP violations. The IP that inserted some dire material added 690 bytes including a reference, and most of it just had to be fixed with one part needing to be removed. You then removed 3232 bytes from the page. When I reverted your revert I was in the process of removing the "dire" edits that the IP added to the article but you quickly reverted my revert and got the page protected.

Go ahead and look at the discussion. Several people agreed not only to include a brief description of cultural Marxism after it's mentioned, but in particular the version I suggested. You would certainly be entitled, and I would have encouraged you, to give input on what that brief description should be, such as making sure we don't imply anything about Anning that is untrue which is a concern of both of us, but clearly you have to accept that the consensus isn't with you on whether or not there should be a wikilink or a description. As I quoted, Abecedare didn't advise you to get the page protected either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

(1) OK, you need to change the way you edit here. If you are going to clean up an article, please don't start by restoring BLP violations! As I said, I am happy to include a neutrally-phrased report of the recent tweet, but it should be discussed on the talk page first. You should have left it out and we could have talked about it like civilised editors. (2) I know some people agreed with you about including a description of CM but Abecedare told you repeatedly that it would be a BLP violation, so of course the consensus was to exclude it. (3) User:Boscaswell, perhaps you could clarify which edit you were describing as "dire"? StAnselm (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

How else would I restore the 2500 bytes that you removed that weren't from the "dire" editor? All I or anybody would have to do is press undo on that person's contributions, but their edits would be very easy to remove manually as well. Again you're using someone's BLP violation so that when someone reverts your 3200 byte removal, they would be inadvertently restoring something that shouldn't be on the page. All that takes is then removing the violating addition from the page, which was simply that they had included the article in a category of neo-nazis. What you've done here is again blatantly disruptive and I don't think people are fooled by it.

I don't think you get what the word consensus means. Quite clearly when people were agreeing with your proposal to wikilink cultural Marxism (even though you don't want it), they were also agreeing with me that it should be described in some way. Again to clarify, the description should not describe Anning personally, it should only describe what he was referring to. For example if I say that I'm walking on Collins Street, we could report that "Onetwothreeip said he was walking on Collins Street, a busy road in Melbourne's CBD". This is clearly not something that would be defamatory to me. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Oneteothreeip, this is getting to be a pretty bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You have been told repeatedly that we cannot include any description of CM without a reliable source connecting it to Anning. This was tested at BLPN as well. And yet you continue to push for its inclusion. StAnselm (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

That's irrelevant as to whether there is a consensus for it, which there is. There is no particular description that it has to be, just something like my Collins Street example. It's not as if we would need a source to say that I personally believe Collins Street is a busy street in order to describe it as such. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Once again, I don't think you understand how consensus works. Since it assesses arguments, there can never be a consensus to include a BLP violation, no matter how many people agree. StAnselm (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

PROPOSAL

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

Therefore, CM cannot have a description added, however an editor might like, unless (see above). I propose just one minor change. That the wikilink of CM, which *does* currently exist, in the Maiden speech subsection, be updated to link directly to the CM subsection of the Frankfurt School article.

On a side note, the CM subsection of the Frankfurt School article has been worked a lot lately and I have to say this. Is it really necessary to have so many mentions of the word 'conspiracy' in it? Why not let readers make up their own minds? Please understand that forcing someone to do something or to think in a particular way often has the opposite effect.

Onetwothreeip StAnselm Adrian Fey Bacondrum please lay down your arms and agree to this. It's important to be able to update the article for current events, this being election time here in Australia. If there is agreement, then it should also be agreed that we let it rest. No "let's leave it for a while and then try again" edits to this area in another few days, or a week, or even a few weeks. By anyone. Unless it satisfies Abecedare's pronouncements.

Peace. Boscaswell talk 23:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

This should clearly be another section. Per Abecedare, I agree that we should not synthesise criticism of the subject based on some understanding of cultural Marxism. This does not mean that cultural Marxism cannot be described in any way to clarify what the term means when we use it. I support the wikilink moving to the the Frankfurt School section.

I certainly don't support the condition that something never be discussed again, that's not something that ever should be agreed to, and that is the personal choice of editors whether they wish to bring something up, and the choice of the rest of the participants for how they want to engage that if they want to at all.

As for "conspiracy", it should be used to the extent that reliable sources on the topic use it. We don't have to use that word on this article when we describe cultural Marxism if people believe it is unduly critical of Anning's use of the phrase. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Boscaswell's proposal. StAnselm (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with Boscaswell's proposal, never supported anything else Bacondrum (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip I proposed no further changes unless they will satisfy what Abecedare said. And you've just said that you agree with what Abecedare said, so I don't understand why you have a problem with my proposal. Therefore, with this clarification, can you agree now? I'm trying to avoid the likelihood of further edit wars, which will undoubtedly break out if further non-NPOV material is edited in.

It's very important not to describe CM outside of what Abecedare says. StAnselm has a point here.

The proposal I've made is a compromise, as CM is already described with what many would describe as a non-NPOV in the Frankfurt School article. This is a BLP. Loathe him (Anning) or love him or anything in between, when we sign up we agree to follow guidelines. I hope you can agree now, Onetwothreeip. Peace. Boscaswell talk 23:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I do agree with the minor change you proposed. I also support providing a brief and neutral description of the phrase that Anning used. Your proposal does not have to be formalised and I anticipate no opposition to it, so we can make the change on the article as possible. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad we've reached a resolution, but I'm worried by the words "I also support providing a brief and neutral description of the phrase". Onetwothreeip, please do not add such a description to the article. StAnselm (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Now that the protection is over, I will be restoring the edits and then will quickly remove the BLP violating content added by the IP address, such as Anning being a neo-nazi. I appeal to everyone to remove BLP violation edits manually instead of reverting edits which include non-violation edits as well. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

But why did you restore the edit listing Cultural Marxism sources? That edit was challenged and should not be restored without consensus. As I see it, it's irrelevant to this article. StAnselm (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with removing those three sources about cultural Marxism. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. StAnselm (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Reject, in order to not accidentally legitimize what Anning said (Not describing cultural marxism for what it is is implicitly normalizing the term and "acknowledging" said theory is "real") and give the impression that he was right and there is nothing incorrect or wrong about "cultural marxism". Per the principle of denying recognition to far-right screeds, and since Abecedare will for some mysterious reason not accept anything unless it explicitly mentions Anning (Who on earth said that he "owns" the term?) and is from Australia, I propose just blanking the entire paragraph and getting it over with, since this week-long discussion has not changed anything in a meaningful fashion and any other proposal is rejected on the spot. In the end, this is likely the best solution, just how Anselm wants it, since the source he is looking after doesn't exist and likely never will, considering there seems to be widespread ignorance of the deceptive and malevolent background behind "cultural marxism" in Australian society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Fey (talk • contribs) 01:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not really a matter of cultural Marxism being a wrong theory or something like this, it is simply not what the phrase implies, a cultural version of Marxism or Marxism as it pertains to culture. I want to appeal to all participants that we are not in a conflict with StAnselm and we do not need their agreement to end such a conflict with some sort of ceasefire. Consensus can be formed with or without StAnselm or any particular editor. Some of these attempts at reaching out to StAnselm are being misconstrued as settlements with an incorrect understanding that there can be no more additions to the particular content, which shows that StAnselm knows they can't get the article to how they want but will seek to win any obstruction they can. I strongly appeal to everyone but Adrian Fey in particular to stop implying that they dislike far-right politics since this is part of what's knocking everything off course and simply not appropriate when discussing how an encyclopaedia should be written. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I would support Boscaswell's proposal if it was amended to include a "short and neutral" description as you proposed in addition of the wikilink, to avoid implying that Anning was telling the truth and that "cultural marxism" is an actual plan to "destroy Western civilization and undermine moral values" as the extreme-right often puts it. Otherwise, I dissent, per above reasons, because not issuing any form of explanation on what cultural marxism means and just leaving it there implies that there is an actual "cultural form of marxism" and that communists are indeed "undermining Western culture" as proponents of the theory often claims, and not everyone bothers to click on hypertext links, so the seed would already be planted and inferred. This discussion is quite exhausting to be honest, especially as we already know what the origins of the "cultural marxism" meme are and that it's actual existence is not verified by any facts, but because there is no source that mentions anning "saying that", we have to act as if the term "cultural marxism" is normal and that we don't know jacksquat about it. Reminds me of the whole Cassandra Syndrome the more I look at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Fey (talk • contribs) 02:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Adrian Fey: clearly you have very strong views, a very powerfully expressed opinion on this matter. And I note from the number of edits you have made to the CM section of the Frankfurt School article that they are reflected in those. Wikipedia has to remain neutral. Whilst I abhore people like Anning's views on, for example, Same Sex Marriage, the fact is that he holds those views. And this is the thing: editing Wikipedia in such a way that no-one can read what he says per Wikipedia without being firmly guided to the opposite opinion is not the way to go, and is simply not permissible under WP:NPOV. There is already an implication that CM is not the truth in that it has inverted commas around it and the link to the CM subsection of the Frankfurt School article is there and is very explicit. People will believe what they want to believe, we're not in the business of mind control. If a view is forced on someone through one-sided writing, then very often they'll take the opposite one. Peace. Boscaswell talk 22:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

When did Fraser Anning become Leader of his party?

So I may have unwittingly started an edit/revert war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fraser_Anning&diff=908655937&oldid=907420393
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fraser_Anning&diff=908695522&oldid=908655937
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fraser_Anning&diff=908791267&oldid=908695522
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fraser_Anning&diff=908857384&oldid=908791267

I'm willing to admit that I may have been in the wrong to do so, or for merely not discussing the issue first.

Anyway, the issue I want to raise, is to get consistency on how to define when a person is established as the Leader of an organisation, in this case a political party. Do we base it on when the party comes into existence, or when by context it's officially registered with the Australian Electoral Commission?
Jacqui Lambie is recognised as leader of the Jacqui Lambie Network on the 14th of May 2015, when her party was registered.
Cory Bernardi is recognised as leader of Australian Conservatives on the 7th of February 2017, which is when it was founded as a party, but is also recognised to have existed as an activist group on 6th July 2016.
Bob Katter is recognised leader of Katter's Australian Party on the 5th of June 11, but the party's registration did not come into effect until the 27th of September.

Fraser's party, Fraser Anning's Conservative National Party, was registered on the 2nd of April this year. The earliest known existence of the party that I can find dates back to January: https://www.afr.com/news/politics/fraser-anning-registers-fraser-annings-conservative-national-party-20190111-h19ym9

So we have 1 example of a politician who assumed leadership office of their party on the day of its registration, 1 example of after it was created (and its status quo changing from an activist group to a political party), and 1 of before it was registered. Where does this leave Fraser for his party?
Tytrox (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Former politician?

Anning lost his seat but he's still the leader of his party. Should the lead sentence refer to him as a former or current politician? Cheers, trainsandtech (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Refer to him as a politician if he still has a party. "Politician" does not mean MP.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Arguably you don't need a party to be a politician. Some Independents have no party association whatsoever (Andrew Wilkie for instance).Tytrox (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Of course you don't, but how is that relevant?--Jack Upland (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Your wording reads as if it suggests that politicians require a party association to be considered a politician. It might not be what you meant in literal terms or whatever, but it's how it can be misinterpreted. I think we're agreeing on the same thing anyway overall.Tytrox (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

No, false inference. If he has a party, I would say he is definitely a politician, whether elected to parliament or not. But that is not to say politicians can't be independent without a party. That does not logically follow.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

How can he simply "move" to the United States?

The article tells us he moved to the United States. It also tells us he is an Australian citizen. I too am an Australian citizen. I cannot simply move to the United States just because I want to. Quite a few hoops have to be jumped through. That part of the article needs some further explanation. HiLo48 (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The source actually says, Sources close to Mr Anning say he is currently visiting family in the United States and has not said when he will return to Australia. I will amend the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I have also moved the information about his bankruptcy to the final section. It doesn't belong in "Personal life and family history" for chronological and thematic reasons. I have also got rid of a lot of repetition. I don't think we know where he is. He could well be in the USA, hoops or no hoops.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)