Talk:Pauline Hanson's One Nation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pauline Hanson's One Nation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Politics Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Pauline Hanson's One Nation is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Politics: Political parties

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Untitled[edit]

Link addition. The latest external link added to the article is to a Crikey.com contribution written by "Anonymous Anonymous". While it seems honest, factual and an excellent example of the rise and fall of One Nation at a State level, I wonder about the authoritative nature of a source apparently just hanging in mid air, added by an unregistered member. Skyring 20:06, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I intend to rv Gil-Galad's contribution. One could hardly call the Greens and Democrats major political parties, and the use of "other" implies that One Nation was as well. Sure, they were put last on HTV cards, but that happened at the Federal election in 1998 as well. The simple fact is that the party's vote dropped 1998-2001, and given the poor result in 1998 and the bitter infighting after that, this is hardly surprising.

In any case, positioning on other party's HTV cards doesn't cause a decline in support. It stops votes flowing that might otherwise help elect candidates. Typically this is best seen in the Senate, where the final seat or two are determined on preference flows.

Gil-Galad's edit gives the impression that One Nation's poor showing in 2001 was due to external forces and this is hardly the case. Skyring 03:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Despite their mere 2% of the primary Senate vote, One Nation and the cross-preferenced Independent Pauline Hanson together got more votes here than the Democrats or Family First. And yet both parties are considered by the media and most others to be more important parts of the political landscape. I intend to remove this. Is there a link to an election results page, which might be more appropriate than this sort of twaddle? FF and AD will have Senators after 30 June 2005, which ON won't, thereby making them more important, if that is the right word when the Government will have a majority in the Senate. Skyring 10:17, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, that paragraph is pure editorialising and has no place here. —Stormie 10:56, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

While that statement should have been supported by more facts (ie a link to the results [easy] and a comparitave Media Monitors or Rehame measure of mentions [quite costly]), I think the statement makes an important point. If you add together the One Nation senate vote with that of Pauline (who effectively formed a coalition, due to their near identical policies, cross preferencing and public perception), the total figure is more than that of the Democrats or Family First.

Despite the near total media blackban, people still vote for them. It is true the Democrats and Family First will each have a tiny number of people in a completely Coalition controlled Senate come July, and One Nation won't. But if you measure the strength of party (in this democracy) by the number of votes it gets, then One Nation is still a force - if only a minor one.

And BTW, I'm not a One Nation member, nor have I ever voted for them or preferenced them highly. matturn 06:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can see the point being made and I'm not averse to including some sort of statement to the effect that significant numbers of votes are and have been gained for limited representation, it's just that it's important to steer clear of editorialising in articles about political parties. For instance in 1998 One Nation gained a million Senate votes but elected only one Senator. And how many votes were divided amongst the other 39 Senators elected? Feel free to edit the article. Pete 06:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2024[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Colin Tincknell is not WA leader anymore - he ceased that position in 2021. 2001:8003:9105:3500:2C2F:3C09:A3F5:2D26 (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 13:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive detail[edit]

In my view the 2016–present: Return to federal politics section contains an excessive amount of detail on minor election results (e.g. by-elections where the party polled 6%), random comments from Hanson (which belong in her personal article), and individual party defections (which are covered by the #Members of parliament section, unless they deserve particular mention like that of Latham). Would anyone object to me thinning this down a little bit? ITBF (talk) 07:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better broken up by election cycles and other significant events rather than just lumping everything in under a heading "2016–present: Return to federal politics". As far as your suggestion, while I don't see anything wrong with a little bit of thinning per se because as you say some of the material is covered in the Pauline Hanson's One Nation#Members of parliament section, I'd want to make sure that no information is lost. E.g. there is detail on Rod Culleton in the 2016-present section that is not in the Members of parliament section. TarnishedPath^talk 08:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox - Youth Wing and Other[edit]

Is there any point including 'Young Nation' as the Party's Youth Wing, there is virtually no coverage on this Youth Wing, and as far as i can tell the only thing relevant to it is that there is a satire facebook page (thats also completely inactive) on it

I feel as if this is giving readers the false impression that the party has some sort of active youth wing, when in reality all there is, is just a business registered under One Nation called 'Young Nation'

On the topic of the infobox, @MarioBayo recently added a membership figure to the infobox, while i think its an interesting bit of information, it is (as noted by Mario) an over 10 year old source, the circumstances since then have drastically changed, the Party has seen a massive revival since then, going from being a micro party to a well established minor party across various states

Maybe instead of being in the infobox, this info could be included in the article somewhere, perhaps under "2013–2015: Hanson's return as leader[" Auspol4 (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. There's been a similar discussion going on in the Australian Labor Party article about whether the Women's, LGTBQI, Young Labor, etc wings should be mentioned in the infobox and my view there was that they should be removed from the infobox and that it is best addressing in the body of the article. TarnishedPath^talk 05:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with moving 'Young Nation' information to a section within the article rather than the infobox as the news citation appears to be the only source for that aspect of the party. As for the membership numbers, the cited source is the only public figure I came across, and I believe its the only number even in the public domain that has ever been published. Although I believe it to be relevant it is fairly old as mentioned. MarioBayo (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]