Talk:Fraser Anning's Conservative National Party/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
definite improvement
Thank you to those who have worked on the article tonight. I think it is much improved in terms of focussing on policies and much better cited. I think there are still a few places where there is still some extrapolation of “what he said” into “what we think he really meant” (eg withdraw from the UN) which either need to be slightly reworded or a better citation found. Plus the need to be specific about who is expressing the opinions, but it’s moving towards a more acceptable article. Whether or not you like him or his policies, he is a lawfully elected senator and he has formed a political party according to our laws. We should present their policies neutrally as with all other lawful political parties. Kerry (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Neo-Nazi allegations
I'm looking through the edit history of the article and it is just a firestorm of people screaming at each other over whether the party is Neo-Nazi or not. To my knowledge, the party has not espoused Lebensraum or anti-Semitism (in fact, he even defended "Judaeo-Christian" values in his maiden speech), or that his nation is entitled to more rights than other nations/entitled to other nations in their entirety. Further, on at least one occasion, Fraser Anning himself has put down the Third Reich: https://www.facebook.com/senatorfraseranning/photos/a.436595833422783/645882805827417/?type=3&permPage=1
Can the people putting Neo-Nazism into the infobox attach a citation or read the definition of (Neo-)Nazism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 675930s (talk • contribs) 13:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Role of Salter and Howard in the speech writing
We have three citations currently. One that "alleges" Salter wrote it, one that "accuses" Howard of writing it, one that says Pauline Hanson & Malcolm Robert "claim" Howard wrote it but Howard denies he wrote it, and a 3rd where Hanson "suggests" Howard wrote and Leyonhjelm saying “Fraser [Anning] told me Richard [Howard] helped with the speech but I don’t know how much.” Right now I don't see a reliable citation that "there are two confirmed writers". Kerry (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Far-right, again
We would need a reliable source to say that the party (and not just Anning) is "far-right", and I can't find one. So I have removed it, but it can be restored with a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- You can add a citation needed tag if you really want but there's no basis to remove the description. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- WP:LIBEL would say otherwise. We need reliable sources. Kerry (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's not libellous at all, it's absurd wikiprocessing when we have Fraser Anning described as far right but "Fraser Anning's Conservative National Party" can't be described as the same. This could really use a healthy dose of common sense and IAR. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- No. In fact, we might expect the party to be not quite as extreme as its leader. StAnselm (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Onetwothreeip: First Fraser Anning does not describe him as "far right". The party article does and, as I have pointed out previously, this fails WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV which states that *in-text* attribution is required for opinions such as this. However, in your edit you removed my {{whom}} request for in-text attribution, in favour of adding the word "broadly" (a "weasel" word) rather than correctly attributing who said it. Let's respect the intelligence of our readers by not influence their thinking by the use of perjorative labels and instead present them with actual policies and any properly attributed commentary on those policies for the readers' consideration. This topic is real-world controversial, which is precisely why we have so much commentary on the principle of Neutral Point of View as a means to move forward with article development on controversial topics. If you cannot contribute to this article dispassionately (because your personal opinions are overriding your commitment to our encyclopedic principles), then you should cease to contribute to this article. We are here to serve our readers, not ourselves. I note that Wikipedia has topic bans for this reason; many good contributors have a "weak spot" for certain topics, which we must guard against while valuing their contributions elsewhere. My preference is to educate other contributors so they self-regulate their own behaviour rather than move to an enforcement. Kerry (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- That's surprisingly off the mark and honestly quite uncivil, but not remarkably uncivil. There has never been any indication that I have views or opinions on the topic, and I have consistently spoken against editors depicting Anning in a particularly negative view. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else? If you do not have evidence to support your accusations, please do not make them. Thank you. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- [1] removed my questioning of this claim in relation to policy, followed by [2] where you asserted the now-unquestioned claim as the basis of further action on the grounds of commons sense and IAR. Both appear to be your edits. Kerry (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Those were both good edits. Neither of them indicate any personal view on the subject matter. Now I'm not sure if you're saying I'm supportive or if I'm opposed to Anning and his party. I am disappointed that you have not seen appropriate to withdraw your unfounded accusations about my personal views. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- [1] removed my questioning of this claim in relation to policy, followed by [2] where you asserted the now-unquestioned claim as the basis of further action on the grounds of commons sense and IAR. Both appear to be your edits. Kerry (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- That's surprisingly off the mark and honestly quite uncivil, but not remarkably uncivil. There has never been any indication that I have views or opinions on the topic, and I have consistently spoken against editors depicting Anning in a particularly negative view. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else? If you do not have evidence to support your accusations, please do not make them. Thank you. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Onetwothreeip: First Fraser Anning does not describe him as "far right". The party article does and, as I have pointed out previously, this fails WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV which states that *in-text* attribution is required for opinions such as this. However, in your edit you removed my {{whom}} request for in-text attribution, in favour of adding the word "broadly" (a "weasel" word) rather than correctly attributing who said it. Let's respect the intelligence of our readers by not influence their thinking by the use of perjorative labels and instead present them with actual policies and any properly attributed commentary on those policies for the readers' consideration. This topic is real-world controversial, which is precisely why we have so much commentary on the principle of Neutral Point of View as a means to move forward with article development on controversial topics. If you cannot contribute to this article dispassionately (because your personal opinions are overriding your commitment to our encyclopedic principles), then you should cease to contribute to this article. We are here to serve our readers, not ourselves. I note that Wikipedia has topic bans for this reason; many good contributors have a "weak spot" for certain topics, which we must guard against while valuing their contributions elsewhere. My preference is to educate other contributors so they self-regulate their own behaviour rather than move to an enforcement. Kerry (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- No. In fact, we might expect the party to be not quite as extreme as its leader. StAnselm (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's not libellous at all, it's absurd wikiprocessing when we have Fraser Anning described as far right but "Fraser Anning's Conservative National Party" can't be described as the same. This could really use a healthy dose of common sense and IAR. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- WP:LIBEL would say otherwise. We need reliable sources. Kerry (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@StAnselm: “we might expect the party to be not quite as extreme as its leader”, you wrote. He is it’s leader, the party is named after him, he is the only member of it that anyone knows anything about. Looking at these three indicators, have to say that I find the concept of the party not being modelled on his own views more than a tad surreal. Boscaswell talk 09:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Policies
Terms such as “Australia-first” wrt. foreign policy. Could this not mean anything? The term comes straight from the party website. Should it be repeated blithely? Further, the words “repudiation of coercive international treaties” come straight from the part site, too. It means...? Wikipedia is meant to inform, not repeat precisely words written on an electioneering platform? I don’t know how to deal with thus, though. Boscaswell talk 09:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately there are no reliable secondary sources bothering to comment on the party. StAnselm (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- At least this exposes that you're willing to push for the point of view of Anning and his party. There's only so much good faith we can extend before you reply to that concern with this. If there is truly nothing neutral we can say about this party, then there is nothing we can say about them at all. This explains why you're unwilling to describe the party as far-right when Anning himself is very much described in that way. It is really to suspend reality that he could be far-right but that the party could be not. If anything we would have to WP:IAR for that distinction because we can't in all honesty present this political party to be more moderate than reliable sources describe Anning. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Edit Explaination Request
Explaination requested by 'PeterTheFourth', will delete this section once the relevant discussion has been had. All follows here is in response to: "Introduces poorly formatted text, weird capitalisation, removes some sources without explanation... Would you make these edits one at a time or explain on talk, please?"
As I specifically stated in my edit summary: the sources I deleted, that you claim I deleted "without explanation", were deleted because they were missing (e.g citation 26, the Facebook citation, was a broken link), or the citation was irrelevant to the text(Citation 24 from section "Anning has repeatedly expressed opposition towards Africans[24]", but Anning and the citation only refers to criticisms with African CRIMINALS, and not Africans as a whole, which may be the attempt at whoever made that edit at asserting that all Africans are criminals, which is clearly racist). Another example is citation 27, which is a link to the policy page of the official Conservative National Party's website policy page. This page make no mentions of Muslims or Islam, and yet it is used as a citation for Anning's opposition to Muslims. In this example I don't deny that he's made those claims, but that the citation is irrelevant to that point. All other citations were moved elsewhere on the page and not removed outright.
In regards to the "poorly formatted text", everything I have edited was at the same standard as what has come before, perhaps with the exception of the 'Ideology and policy' section, in which the unusual format was used for the sake of misinformation being spread about Anning being a Fascist and a Neo-Nazi, contrary to all of the evidence on personal statements and official Party policy/goals. It was based on my view the best way to convey the information relevant to the point, namely that support for Freedom of speech/assembly, public referendums and decentralization of power are definitely anti-fascist and liberal-democratic principles. You can't be a Fascist-Liberal-Democrat, such a term is an oxymoron, and yet at the same time you have users here and most of the media contradicting themselves at every turn. The format therefore was used for the sake of the best way I could see to convey the necessary information without some politically motivated ideologue here immediately reverting it for a lack in relevance or sourcing.
In future please don't just revert everything because you have minor issues with a couple of misused capitals or a slight format misunderstanding, when the content is relevant, properly sourced, and unbiased. Instead try and fix the errors? Sundeki (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- If a citation is broken, the solution is to fix it, not delete it. You clearly disagree with "most of the media" but we rely entirely on the media and other reliable sources to create these articles, not our own personal research. Clearly your issue is with news organisations that we are referencing, and so your efforts would be better directed at getting them to change what they have published. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- The party's facebook put up a post with the policy of banning non-white Africans and Muslims. That was the dead link, which should have been archived. We should probably start archiving social media posts because they keep getting removed. I do agree that some of the citations are bad, but that doesn't mean that the entire section should be scrapped. I'm in the process of getting more citations regarding anti-muslim sentiment, I'm just waiting for archive to work. Catiline52 (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- to Onetwothreeip: I cannot "fix" a citation that has been removed, it doesn't work like that. If someone has an archive/backup of the citation, as Catiline52 suggests, then fix the citation. I don't have such a thing and if that means temporarily removing the citation until someone can come up with it again, then that is the only reasonable course of action. Having dead citations on the page is messy and unnecessary. Also my disagreements with the media are based on objectivity. One cannot be placed in the same camp as Fascism, on the far-right, and be on your party platform principally anti-fascist. It's the height of intellectual dishonestly and gives momentum to actual far-right wing groups. And you'll notice that I don't actually remove citations from said media sites, I merely add a different perspective from far more reputable and intellectually driven groups, such as think tanks, to counter those intellectually dishonest sources previously cited. I admit that it may have been a bit much to refer to "most" of the media, though. To Catiline52: I didn't "scrap" any sections. I removed irrelevant or incorrectly linked citations and trimmed sections by moving that which did have citations to another part in the section. I did not delete more than a few words and a couple of citations, ultimately. Most of what I did was add second opinions to a page that seems to be steeped in one sidedness and bias, which last time I checked was against the Wikipedia guidelines. Sundeki (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- You don't have to fix a citation either, you just don't have to remove it. This is actually why we leave incomplete citations and citation tags there, because that's how other editors become aware of the issue. If you find an issue with citations but you don't feel like you can fix the issue yourself, the best course of action is to place a tag next to the content.
- Wikipedia doesn't endeavour to find out the facts separate to what the media finds. The party's statements are irrelevant if we have reliable sources that contradict those statements. Adding content and citations to describe Anning or his party from sources that do not discuss Fraser Anning or his political party are not allowed as WP:SYNTHESIS. It is up to reliable sources to determine if the party is something or not, and not to be deduced from sources that don't describe the party. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Reliable sources" would at the very least involve justifications based on the evidence. Simply stating that someone is far-right/far-left and then providing arguments based on data that isn't exclusive to that respective section of the political spectrum doesn't make that assertion correct. It's like saying the Soviet Union nationalized industry, so anyone that advocates for nationalizing any industry is immediately far-left wing or communist. It simply doesn't work like that. I provided in my edit a citation to an analysis of the classification of 'far-right' claims and how it's become a trend among sections of the media and so-called 'political commentators' to immediately label anyone that holds mainstream rightwing views that aren't exclusive to far-right wing politics, as far-right wing. In the same way there's a similarities between Marxism-Leninism and Democratic Socialism, nobody with any credibility can claim they are both the same and both close enough to one another to label Democratic Socialism as purely far-left wing. They hold small, but fundamental differences, on ways to achieve functionally similar goals. This is what has to be said about comparing the Conservative National Party/Fraser Anning to Fascists, Nazis and other far-right wing elements. Key differentiating features between Right wing politics and Far right wing politics is process. Fraser Anning has never advocated for aggressive military expansion at the expense of other people, the subjugation of foreign populations, the use of violence against opponents within with political system, the suppression of contradicting political opinions by the state, or the seizure of private property for political reasons. These are most of the key defining feature differences between the mainstream right wing politics and far-right wing politics. I don't know what "reliable sources that contradict those statements" are, but all of Fraser Anning's statements and policy so far has been opposed to every one of these policy positions (perhaps with leeway when it comes to seizure of property for political reasons, since he does advocate for Australian ownership of some sections, but that part is a debatable topic).
- As for the claims of 'synthesis', I did not merge two+ completely different ideas into one. That is what is meant by the word. I didn't take A, B and C and make them into ABC, I put them together as A>into>B>into>C, into a progression, with each point specifically separated from the other. Assertions of far-right wing were wholly unrepresentative of the evidence, statements and actions up to this point, and to prevent people from immediately reverting the content, I provided: the claims of far-right wing provided here by others > think tank analysis on what differentiates right wing from far-right wing, contradicting claims of far right in comparable scenarios in Europe/Western countries > evidence that Anning's policies and statements up to this point are definitively not in line with the think tank's definition and historical analysis of "far-right". This is not grounds for claim of synthesis and the think tank was not taken out of context, nor hard anyone else's claim made to be theirs or visa-versa. Sundeki (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- How any source defines right wing or far-right is completely irrelevant, and so is your analysis of Anning's and his party's policies. What matters is how reliable sources describe Anning and his party directly. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- "How any source defines right wing or far-right is completely irrelevant". To be honest I am sitting here rather dumbfounded. Are you really claiming that whether or not someone is far-right wing or not is irrelevant to whether or not someone is far-right wing? Please correct me if that is wrong. That is the entire point, however. I will point out again that within the confines of wikipedia pages on Australian political parties, there are many parties which have wrongly been asserted to be far-left wing, such as the Australian Greens party and even the Labor party. If we go purely by what opponents of the group assert in media without justification then every single political party on wikipedia should be edited to be within the infobox "Left wing to Far-right wing" or "Right wing to Far-left wing". Consistency and relevancy to political sciences are entirely within the point. And once again you will note that I did not remove claims of Far-right wing ideology on the page, either in the opening summary or in the 'Ideology and policy' section and they still have all of the citations provided by other users as describing Anning/the Party as such. But placing the label of "Far-right wing" within the infobox as though it is a fact (when all the evidence points to the contrary) and as though it isn't up for debate(it absolutely is) is not the point of the infobox. The claim of far-right is in the initial summary, as well as Ideology and policy section. That is, based on my subjective opinion, sufficient to get yours(?) and other people's point across that you and some media sources believe they are far right wing. But it is not set in stone. Should you wish to put "Right-wing" as their position within the infobox, that is entirely reasonable and I doubt that anyone would disagree with it. Sundeki (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- Again, the only evidence we care about on this matter is whether reliable sources call the party far-right. We don't deduce that because Anning has xyz policies and that a source says xyz aren't far-right policies that Anning or his party isn't far-right, or anything like that, which is blatantly WP:SYNTH. You are welcome to describe the Greens or the ALP as far-left if you have citations from reliable sources describing them as such. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- And once again, I have not removed claims of far-right from the page, nor any of the citations provided. You would have grounds to bring this up if I had removed them all outright from the page based on my personally biased notion of what are or aren't those things. All I did was put it in proper context and made the page fit the guidelines under NPOV. The page previously displayed content that was completely out of line with the NPOV guidelines, particularly "Avoid stating opinions as facts." Reporters and other media sources that say that Anning / The Party are "far-right", and then offer no evidence that Anning to their assertions falls within the grounds of Far-right wing ideology such as Fascism or Nazism. Therefore their claims are OPINIONS made by one person, whether that person is reputable or otherwise. Whether or not someone considers them to be a reliable source is ultimately irrelevant. The very first line of the "fact" page here on Wikipedia is "A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence." Fraser Anning has not been shown saying things that differentiate him from mainstream Right-wing nationalist/populist rhetoric, to Far-right wing ideologies such as Fascism or Nazism. Therefore statements made about him being far-right wing, or the party being far-right wing are opinions. We have two clear options if you really think some of what I have done is synthesis. I disagree that's what I've done, but for the sake of resolving this let's talk about a hypothetical in which that is the case: Either the page now is engaging in synthesis which is breaking Wikipedia rules/guidelines, OR there are opinions being displayed as facts which is also breaking the rules and guidelines. There's been a reason that up until now I've only made small deleting edits to the page to keep it consistent with the guidelines, but the last time I did that you removed it with a snide comment of "no need". Yes there was a need. And now we're stuck arguing over this because people are stating opinions as facts and I'm having to clean the bias up so the page isn't a hitjob, particularly one that breaks the guidelines on other things such as the "Biography of living persons" page. Ultimately if you have the desire to delete what I've edited on the page, then do it. But I will delete then the opinions stated as fact of Far-right, and if someone re-adds them, then to fit in with the site guidelines again I will have to re-add what I've done now to keep the page non-biased and not making opinionated claims of fact. Sundeki (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- No, they have not referred to him as far-right as a matter of opinion. That is how the reliable sources have neutrally and objectively described him. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, they have. That is exactly what they have done. A media source saying Anning is Far-right wing, and then using evidence to describe him as such that isn't exclusive to Far-right wing ideology means it is a subjective opinion, not an objective fact. That's what those words mean. Sundeki (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Sundeki: We don't fact check our reliable sources - we take them at their word, per WP:RS. Do you believe that the source is unreliable? PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, they have. That is exactly what they have done. A media source saying Anning is Far-right wing, and then using evidence to describe him as such that isn't exclusive to Far-right wing ideology means it is a subjective opinion, not an objective fact. That's what those words mean. Sundeki (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- No, they have not referred to him as far-right as a matter of opinion. That is how the reliable sources have neutrally and objectively described him. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- And once again, I have not removed claims of far-right from the page, nor any of the citations provided. You would have grounds to bring this up if I had removed them all outright from the page based on my personally biased notion of what are or aren't those things. All I did was put it in proper context and made the page fit the guidelines under NPOV. The page previously displayed content that was completely out of line with the NPOV guidelines, particularly "Avoid stating opinions as facts." Reporters and other media sources that say that Anning / The Party are "far-right", and then offer no evidence that Anning to their assertions falls within the grounds of Far-right wing ideology such as Fascism or Nazism. Therefore their claims are OPINIONS made by one person, whether that person is reputable or otherwise. Whether or not someone considers them to be a reliable source is ultimately irrelevant. The very first line of the "fact" page here on Wikipedia is "A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence." Fraser Anning has not been shown saying things that differentiate him from mainstream Right-wing nationalist/populist rhetoric, to Far-right wing ideologies such as Fascism or Nazism. Therefore statements made about him being far-right wing, or the party being far-right wing are opinions. We have two clear options if you really think some of what I have done is synthesis. I disagree that's what I've done, but for the sake of resolving this let's talk about a hypothetical in which that is the case: Either the page now is engaging in synthesis which is breaking Wikipedia rules/guidelines, OR there are opinions being displayed as facts which is also breaking the rules and guidelines. There's been a reason that up until now I've only made small deleting edits to the page to keep it consistent with the guidelines, but the last time I did that you removed it with a snide comment of "no need". Yes there was a need. And now we're stuck arguing over this because people are stating opinions as facts and I'm having to clean the bias up so the page isn't a hitjob, particularly one that breaks the guidelines on other things such as the "Biography of living persons" page. Ultimately if you have the desire to delete what I've edited on the page, then do it. But I will delete then the opinions stated as fact of Far-right, and if someone re-adds them, then to fit in with the site guidelines again I will have to re-add what I've done now to keep the page non-biased and not making opinionated claims of fact. Sundeki (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Again, the only evidence we care about on this matter is whether reliable sources call the party far-right. We don't deduce that because Anning has xyz policies and that a source says xyz aren't far-right policies that Anning or his party isn't far-right, or anything like that, which is blatantly WP:SYNTH. You are welcome to describe the Greens or the ALP as far-left if you have citations from reliable sources describing them as such. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- "How any source defines right wing or far-right is completely irrelevant". To be honest I am sitting here rather dumbfounded. Are you really claiming that whether or not someone is far-right wing or not is irrelevant to whether or not someone is far-right wing? Please correct me if that is wrong. That is the entire point, however. I will point out again that within the confines of wikipedia pages on Australian political parties, there are many parties which have wrongly been asserted to be far-left wing, such as the Australian Greens party and even the Labor party. If we go purely by what opponents of the group assert in media without justification then every single political party on wikipedia should be edited to be within the infobox "Left wing to Far-right wing" or "Right wing to Far-left wing". Consistency and relevancy to political sciences are entirely within the point. And once again you will note that I did not remove claims of Far-right wing ideology on the page, either in the opening summary or in the 'Ideology and policy' section and they still have all of the citations provided by other users as describing Anning/the Party as such. But placing the label of "Far-right wing" within the infobox as though it is a fact (when all the evidence points to the contrary) and as though it isn't up for debate(it absolutely is) is not the point of the infobox. The claim of far-right is in the initial summary, as well as Ideology and policy section. That is, based on my subjective opinion, sufficient to get yours(?) and other people's point across that you and some media sources believe they are far right wing. But it is not set in stone. Should you wish to put "Right-wing" as their position within the infobox, that is entirely reasonable and I doubt that anyone would disagree with it. Sundeki (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- How any source defines right wing or far-right is completely irrelevant, and so is your analysis of Anning's and his party's policies. What matters is how reliable sources describe Anning and his party directly. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Specifically, do you have reason to believe Asia Times is unreliable? We're using this article from them. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
They are reporting that Anning is far-right. You may disagree with this but that is what they are reporting. They are not reporting that this is the opinion of others, this is simply what they are stating. Your problem here is clearly with those outlets, not how Wikipedia uses them to create articles. Here you can see that the source describes Anning as far-right in the same way that they are saying he is a senator, and they're not stating an opinion that he is a senator either. Same here. These are two additional sources which I will add to the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- @PeterTheFourth: WP:SOURCE clearly states that each page's reliability can be called into question even if the rest of the website or journalist's activity is "reliable". And at the same time, that a page has facts on it doesn't preclude it from having opinions either. https://www.smh.com.au/national/fraser-anning-spent-most-taxpayers-money-on-family-travel-last-year-20190320-p515sm.html (citation 5) simply states "Far-right Queensland senator Fraser Anning" (which is an opinion attached to a fact), and then doesn't provide any evidence that specifically shows that Anning is far right. Whether or not they are "reporting" something is irrelevant. Opinions cannot be stated as facts without contradicting the WP:NPOV guidelines. All of the sources used to describe anning as "Far right" could as easily be used to describe him as a more moderate "right wing", meaning the subjectivity of the evidence brought forth is entirely opinionated and not based on the definitions of objectivity or fact, bringing the current state of the page into conflict with NPOV guidelines. Sundeki (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- And the other sources we're using? PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Very well, I'll list them: Citation 3: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2019/mar/16/far-right-australian-senator-fraser-anning-attacks-boy-after-being-egged-video - This page links only to a video of Fraser Anning and makes no mention of Far right or far right ideology and as such is totally irrelevant. Citation 4: https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/peter-dutton-claims-greens-just-as-bad-as-fraser-anning-on-christchurch-attack/ar-BBUTrlf - This page makes no direct mention of Anning being far-right, as all of the politicians statements are made in general terms, with Bill Shorten's comments being admitted by the page to be about "blaming unnamed “extreme-right politicians”" and as such cannot be linked directly to Fraser Anning as a source for "far right". Citation 6: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/16/asia/australian-senator-fraser-anning-egg-incident/index.html this citation admits that "Anning said he opposed violence and condemned the gunman's actions"(in reference to the Christchurch shooting that began these Far right claims in the first place), but Anning stated his opposition to the far right shooter and all claims of him being far right on said page are based on the subjective opinion of the writer and provide no evidence that Anning endorses any explicitly/exclusively far-right ideology/movement, and thus claims are subjective. Citation 7: https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/03/article/the-rise-and-rise-of-australias-right/ - this is the only citation that has any possible credibility, as it attempts to highlight possible evidence for far-right ideology/statements. However it contradicts itself. It opens by saying that Anning himself (and this isn't indicative of the party as a whole if it was true/reliable/relevant) is merely right wing and that he is a "symbol of the far-right", which is meaningless. Anyone can be a symbol of something without actually being that something, even if the statement were true (which he hasn't physically staked out anything of the sort, it's a term of phrase, and thus entirely subjective). The first claims of far-right relevance are when the page states "has staked out fertile territory on the far-right of Australia’s politics." without any evidence to support that position, while potentially simultaneously contradicting previous statements. The only statement on the whole page that has any credibility to far-right claims is "From his first speech demanding a “final solution” to stop Muslim immigration,", this is a use of commom language and Anning himself denied knowledge/intention of the historical connotations surrounded the use of the term. ( https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/why-the-term-final-solution-sparked-such-a-fierce-backlash/news-story/21d4eab87112e5bebf194dcd4a03b8d4 ) Here Anning is cited as stating "Senator Anning has denied the link between his use of the term and its historical context, saying he “didn’t even think” about whether it would be offensive.". Stupidity is not sufficient evidence of far-right ideology and Anning implicitly disavowed any Nazi meaning behind his use of the term. Second, hiring a security firm/group that has people described as "far-right" isn't complicity in the actions/statements of said people. One can hire someone for something completely irrelevant of their political positions and security for a public event doesn't imply complicity. Next "Anning has also consorted at public events with fellow UPF leader Blair Cottrell.", to the same point as previously applies. Anning has specifically ruled out running Blair Cotrell as a candidate for the party in the upcoming election (https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/fraser-anning-registers-own-political-party-will-run-candidates-in-most-lower-house-seats-20190404-p51api.html) and merely interacting with someone doesn't imply complicity with a person's statements/actions and the rejection of running Blair Cottrell is indicative of disagreement over ideology/political position. Everything is circumstantial, and being at the same PUBLIC event as actual far-right elements, in which that public event also had participants who were centre-right and moderate right-wing, is proof of nothing. There were anarchists and communists at OccupyWallStreet for instance, but nobody can claim that because of that everyone at the event/s were far left wing extremists. When an article comes out with EVIDENCE that the PARTY is far right in any major part by statements of party officials or on the party website, or actions of party officials or leaders, OR the unwillingness to eject rank and file members that hold actual stated far right/fascist/nazi views or participated in actions indicative of far right wing views (like attacks on political enemies for instance): then the claim that Anning/The party are Far-right will have objective facts on it's side(it's entirely possible any of this happens in the future by the way). The constant attempt to highlight mainstream Right wing views as far right is driving up the recruitment capacity of actual far right elements by pushing mainstream people to the fringes and I won't be having any of it on a website used by who knows how many people as a source of factual information. Sundeki (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Citation 3: "The extreme rightwing nationalist senator". To call extreme right wing not far right is really stretching it. If you even google the term it comes up with far right, they're synonymous. Agreed with Citation 4. Citation 5: Surprisingly overlooked because it doesn't agree with your argument, beginning with "Far-right Queensland senator Fraser Anning". Citation 6: also states "A far-right Australian lawmaker". Citation 7: I don't have a solid stance on this source. Catiline52 (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Citation 3" very clearly mentions far-right even in the URL, and so does "Citation 6". You're claiming that some parts of these articles are facts but that other parts are opinions of the article writers. Even if you're correct it's irrelevant, we don't rely on determining what it means that Anning said something about Blair Cottrell, we just follow reliable sources. Not all of these sources are there to cite that Anning is far-right. "Extreme rightwing" is obviously synonymous with far-right. You haven't put into doubt the reliability of any of the sources to any extent. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Catiline52: I am not disputing that people have called Anning many things, including "far right" and "extreme right", I am disputing the claim that he is far right, based on the evidence. He is obviously right wing with ideological views that put him in the less mainstream elements of Right-wing, but to place Anning in the same category as Nazis, Fascists and other extreme variations of Right-wing ideologies is intellectually dishonest, considering that none of his statements so far endorse violence against opponents, the creation of one party/dictatorial states, or anything that specifically separates far-right wing from mainstream Right wing. That people have called him far-right, without evidence, is clearly opinion, and I have no problem with opinions stated as opinions. The pages however just say outright that Anning/the party are far right wing, and then doesn't cite objective fact in support of the claim in any of the citations. Therefore it's unreasonable and against the wikipedia rules and guidelines to use that citation as a statement of fact. @Onetwothreeip: Everything you have stated now is incorrect. WP:NEWSORG states quite clearly News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. Just because there are facts on the page (which can be used in statements of fact) does not mean that everything on the page is a fact and it is your responsibility to properly determine which elements are fact and which are the opinions of writers (all of which of course have their own biases and opinions). When someone on one of the cited pages says "far right wing", in order for that to be used as a citation of factual statement on Wikipedia, it has to include objectively verifiable data that explicitly identifies far right wing elements that differentiate the person/party from other non-far right wing political positions. I didn't make the rules or guidelines, I am merely trying to abide by them.Sundeki (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- All you're saying is that one part of an article is fact and we can use it but another part of an article is opinion and we can't use it. You haven't attempted to explain how you know this. To put it bluntly, it's not relevant if you think Anning is not far-right. It would be a much better use of your time if you made specific proposals of content that can be added or modified. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes it absolutely is relevant that the facts don't support the claim that he is far-right, when attempting to make a FACTUAL claim about something. And yes, you cannot use opinion as fact, and I am not the one saying it, THE RULES AND GUIDELINES PAGES OF WIKIPEDIA SAY IT. I capitalized it because I keep saying it and you seemingly keep ignoring it. It says it clear as crystal right here: WP:YESPOV. And it says in the guidelines right here WP:NEWSORG that news sources have both facts and opinions on them, and in accordance with the other rules you can use the FACTS of the page to identify facts and the OPINIONS of the page CANNOT. Sundeki (talk) 07:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- The consensus of this talk page is clearly that articles from reliable sources describing Anning as far-right constitutes objective factual reporting as much as the rest of the articles do. You have not convinced anybody otherwise and repeatedly restoring the article against that consensus is highly disruptive. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- You do not speak for anyone else here, don't even try to do so, everyone who has participated in this has differing opinions. The fact that all of this is even happening proves there is no consensus, and based on the completely different ways of viewing the site rules that isn't going to change. You say that what I am doing is disruptive, but I citing the site rules, which specifically state in no uncertain terms, that you should avoid stating opinions as fact. The difference between an opinion and a fact is that an opinion has subjective evidence to support it (e.g I feel x) and a fact has objective evidence to support it (e.g I can show direct causation and correlation that proves my statement). Every statement of far-right wing has not been accompanied by the objective evidence to support the claim, and as such it is a subjective claim/opinion. We know that Fraser Anning was at a public event that far right individuals also attended. How? Because we have photographic evidence of said event with Anning present. The claim that he was far-right because he was at an event that also had some far right individuals at it is nonsensical to the point of outright dismissal. Nobody for instance can claim that everyone at OccupyWallStreet was an anarchist and be taken seriously. The burden of proof is on you and those who write the article to provide objective facts as evidence to support your position. The only disruption going on here is because you want to have subjectivity to have precedence over objectivity. And I'm saying no. I am more than willing to allow opinions to be stated, as long as they are recognized as opinions and not facts. Consensus is less relevant than the site rules and guidelines, which is great because I now see that you and I will not see eye to eye on the concept of objectivity vs subjectivity. Which in the end means you and I are actually having an argument over whether your opinion or my opinion matters more, which is completely and utterly fruitless. Sundeki (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- We all agree that we should avoid stating opinions as fact. We just don't agree with you that these newspapers are only expressing an opinion when they call him far-right in the headline or the in the first sentence. It's not something that we have deduced from him appearing at certain events, it's just that we looked at what these reliable sources say, and they're not saying it as a matter of opinion, they believe it to be objective analysis. It does not prove that there is no consensus that you continue to make lengthy and passionate responses, so I think this will be the last response from me. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes it absolutely is relevant that the facts don't support the claim that he is far-right, when attempting to make a FACTUAL claim about something. And yes, you cannot use opinion as fact, and I am not the one saying it, THE RULES AND GUIDELINES PAGES OF WIKIPEDIA SAY IT. I capitalized it because I keep saying it and you seemingly keep ignoring it. It says it clear as crystal right here: WP:YESPOV. And it says in the guidelines right here WP:NEWSORG that news sources have both facts and opinions on them, and in accordance with the other rules you can use the FACTS of the page to identify facts and the OPINIONS of the page CANNOT. Sundeki (talk) 07:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- All you're saying is that one part of an article is fact and we can use it but another part of an article is opinion and we can't use it. You haven't attempted to explain how you know this. To put it bluntly, it's not relevant if you think Anning is not far-right. It would be a much better use of your time if you made specific proposals of content that can be added or modified. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Catiline52: I am not disputing that people have called Anning many things, including "far right" and "extreme right", I am disputing the claim that he is far right, based on the evidence. He is obviously right wing with ideological views that put him in the less mainstream elements of Right-wing, but to place Anning in the same category as Nazis, Fascists and other extreme variations of Right-wing ideologies is intellectually dishonest, considering that none of his statements so far endorse violence against opponents, the creation of one party/dictatorial states, or anything that specifically separates far-right wing from mainstream Right wing. That people have called him far-right, without evidence, is clearly opinion, and I have no problem with opinions stated as opinions. The pages however just say outright that Anning/the party are far right wing, and then doesn't cite objective fact in support of the claim in any of the citations. Therefore it's unreasonable and against the wikipedia rules and guidelines to use that citation as a statement of fact. @Onetwothreeip: Everything you have stated now is incorrect. WP:NEWSORG states quite clearly News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. Just because there are facts on the page (which can be used in statements of fact) does not mean that everything on the page is a fact and it is your responsibility to properly determine which elements are fact and which are the opinions of writers (all of which of course have their own biases and opinions). When someone on one of the cited pages says "far right wing", in order for that to be used as a citation of factual statement on Wikipedia, it has to include objectively verifiable data that explicitly identifies far right wing elements that differentiate the person/party from other non-far right wing political positions. I didn't make the rules or guidelines, I am merely trying to abide by them.Sundeki (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Very well, I'll list them: Citation 3: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2019/mar/16/far-right-australian-senator-fraser-anning-attacks-boy-after-being-egged-video - This page links only to a video of Fraser Anning and makes no mention of Far right or far right ideology and as such is totally irrelevant. Citation 4: https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/peter-dutton-claims-greens-just-as-bad-as-fraser-anning-on-christchurch-attack/ar-BBUTrlf - This page makes no direct mention of Anning being far-right, as all of the politicians statements are made in general terms, with Bill Shorten's comments being admitted by the page to be about "blaming unnamed “extreme-right politicians”" and as such cannot be linked directly to Fraser Anning as a source for "far right". Citation 6: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/16/asia/australian-senator-fraser-anning-egg-incident/index.html this citation admits that "Anning said he opposed violence and condemned the gunman's actions"(in reference to the Christchurch shooting that began these Far right claims in the first place), but Anning stated his opposition to the far right shooter and all claims of him being far right on said page are based on the subjective opinion of the writer and provide no evidence that Anning endorses any explicitly/exclusively far-right ideology/movement, and thus claims are subjective. Citation 7: https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/03/article/the-rise-and-rise-of-australias-right/ - this is the only citation that has any possible credibility, as it attempts to highlight possible evidence for far-right ideology/statements. However it contradicts itself. It opens by saying that Anning himself (and this isn't indicative of the party as a whole if it was true/reliable/relevant) is merely right wing and that he is a "symbol of the far-right", which is meaningless. Anyone can be a symbol of something without actually being that something, even if the statement were true (which he hasn't physically staked out anything of the sort, it's a term of phrase, and thus entirely subjective). The first claims of far-right relevance are when the page states "has staked out fertile territory on the far-right of Australia’s politics." without any evidence to support that position, while potentially simultaneously contradicting previous statements. The only statement on the whole page that has any credibility to far-right claims is "From his first speech demanding a “final solution” to stop Muslim immigration,", this is a use of commom language and Anning himself denied knowledge/intention of the historical connotations surrounded the use of the term. ( https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/why-the-term-final-solution-sparked-such-a-fierce-backlash/news-story/21d4eab87112e5bebf194dcd4a03b8d4 ) Here Anning is cited as stating "Senator Anning has denied the link between his use of the term and its historical context, saying he “didn’t even think” about whether it would be offensive.". Stupidity is not sufficient evidence of far-right ideology and Anning implicitly disavowed any Nazi meaning behind his use of the term. Second, hiring a security firm/group that has people described as "far-right" isn't complicity in the actions/statements of said people. One can hire someone for something completely irrelevant of their political positions and security for a public event doesn't imply complicity. Next "Anning has also consorted at public events with fellow UPF leader Blair Cottrell.", to the same point as previously applies. Anning has specifically ruled out running Blair Cotrell as a candidate for the party in the upcoming election (https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/fraser-anning-registers-own-political-party-will-run-candidates-in-most-lower-house-seats-20190404-p51api.html) and merely interacting with someone doesn't imply complicity with a person's statements/actions and the rejection of running Blair Cottrell is indicative of disagreement over ideology/political position. Everything is circumstantial, and being at the same PUBLIC event as actual far-right elements, in which that public event also had participants who were centre-right and moderate right-wing, is proof of nothing. There were anarchists and communists at OccupyWallStreet for instance, but nobody can claim that because of that everyone at the event/s were far left wing extremists. When an article comes out with EVIDENCE that the PARTY is far right in any major part by statements of party officials or on the party website, or actions of party officials or leaders, OR the unwillingness to eject rank and file members that hold actual stated far right/fascist/nazi views or participated in actions indicative of far right wing views (like attacks on political enemies for instance): then the claim that Anning/The party are Far-right will have objective facts on it's side(it's entirely possible any of this happens in the future by the way). The constant attempt to highlight mainstream Right wing views as far right is driving up the recruitment capacity of actual far right elements by pushing mainstream people to the fringes and I won't be having any of it on a website used by who knows how many people as a source of factual information. Sundeki (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- And the other sources we're using? PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: I had previously been opposed to describing the party as "far-right" since all the sources referred just to Anning himself, and not to the party. But now such a source exists: "His new party is running on a far-right anti-immigration platform." I understand Sundeki's objection that this is an opinion, not a fact, but for classifying parties (but not individuals, per BLP policy: we say that Anning has been described as far-right) we use such statements objectively on Wikipedia. StAnselm (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
This isn't how the guidelines work. WP:YESPOV Specifically states: Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." This is the reason as to why I don't have a problem with it being stated that Anning is far right, but if you read the last sentence, it clearly says "an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil. Therefore the claims of Far-right can be stated, but in the proper context, in the proper format. That means that the arbitrarily descriptive and subjective nature of Far-right stated in the news articles cannot be stated as fact. The next response I've gotten after describing this is something along the lines of "Don't you think these news sources are reliable?", to which I say: that's not relevant. Here on the first section of WP:RS it specifically states The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: The piece of work itself (the article, book) The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press) Any of the three can affect reliability. Claims that because the author/journalist or the website that hosts them, being determined by users here as "reliable" and using that as sufficient argument to dismiss my claims clearly goes against the Wikipedia guidelines. I'll repeat the last part: Any of the three can affect reliability.. Also on WP:RS this is stated: Source reliability falls on a spectrum: highly reliable sources, clearly unreliable sources, and many in the middle. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and unreliable sources. Again: Any of the three can affect reliability. When you say "we use such statements objectively on Wikipedia.", I simply can't do anything but object to that, because the guidelines specifically state differently. Just because a journalist says something doesn't make it a fact, even if there are other facts on the page. I don't really know how many times I can specifically state the rules. Sundeki (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC).
- "Far-right" is not a description like "good" or "bad". It is intended to describe the actual attributes of the party or person. We are not indicating that it is good or bad to be far-right. The articles, writers and publishers here are all reliable, unless you have specific evidence to the contrary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I think you missed the point I was trying to make with that, I was not talking about good or bad of anning specifically, the quote I used was from the relevant page and I was using it to explain format, not notions of morality. I brought it up because the demanded format is about highlighting that you shouldn't be using subjective opinion as stated fact, again, and that you must specifically highlight it as what I have been doing, saying that media describes Anning as far-right, not that he is far right as a factual statement? Sundeki (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Date of foundation
In the infobox, we have it as 2 April. This is the date of approval by the AEC, and that’s not the same thing. The article has him announcing his intention to register the party in Jan 2019, but there’s no specific date and no citation. Boscaswell talk 11:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
FarRight?
" The senator ruled out nominating any white nationalist or far-right candidates, including Neil Erikson and Blair Cottrell, two anti-Islam figureheads who have agitated for nationalist change in Australia in recent years.
Senator Anning said on Thursday that his party would go to the election on a platform including a "predominantly European immigration policy", the deportation of refugees, the removal of sex education programme Safe Schools, and an emphasis on rising energy prices"
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/111811424/australian-senator-fraser-anning-registers-his-own-political-party — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshrosenbergoz (talk • contribs) 04:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Type in “Fraser Anning Far Right” into google. There is no shortage of media references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geelongite (talk • contribs) 05:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- If you have reliable sources, then add them to the article. “Just google it” is not a reliable source. And I would remind everyone of Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy. Kerry (talk) 08:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
This page has many inaccuracies, obviously designed to deceive the reader into believing what the writer wants them to believe. Fraser Anning has no affiliation with any Neo Nazi organisations, nor would he wish to be aligned with them. The writer of this page very obviously wishes to portray Fraser Anning, and his organisation in a negative light, and is therefore not a trustworthy source of information Tangles100 (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Bullshit. There are numerous sources that disprove your stupid comment:
- https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/07/fraser-anning-appearance-at-far-right-rally-draws-condemnation - https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/fraser-anning-staffer-and-alleged-nazi-enthusiast-employed-by-home-affairs-20190321-p51698.html - https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/politicians-unite-against-racism-as-neo-nazis-and-independent-senator-condemned-20190106-p50pw5.html - https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/scott-morrison-lashes-repeat-offender-fraser-anning-over-neo-nazi-rally-20190107-p50q09.html - https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2019/01/06/fraser-anning-nazis/ - https://www.afr.com/news/politics/coalition-stops-short-of-criticising-fraser-anning-for-attending-race-rally-20190106-h19rms Now go shove your bullshit where it belongs: back up your arse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geelongite (talk • contribs) 13:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Funny how you morons are creating accounts just for the sole purpose of defending your fuhrer.
If you were to listen to Fraser Annings interviews and podcasts, you would hear tbe story directly from the source. He is not far-right politically. His political position is actually centre-right, and is exactly where the LNP was only a few decades ago. The entire political window has shifted to the left so much that normal conservative values are now considered extreme and far-right. It's ridiculous. Dambit (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Sources state otherwise, and personal opinion or perspective isn't applicable on Wikipedia. Even if they were, stating that it was where the LNP was a few decades ago is categorically false. Half a century ago during the Malcolm Fraser leadership, the LNP was pro-asylum seeker and pro-multiculturalism. You'd need to go even further than a few decades to reach the point where they were in favour of the White Australia Policy. Also, using past categories on the present is a bit weird since "the centre" doesn't exist and reorientates itself to whatever hierarchies are in the societal system at the time of recording. If we bothered comparing everything to past parties, the Labor Party would be centre-right because they've adopted the same approaches to the economy as the historical centre-right LNP governments. Catiline52 (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)