Talk:Pauline Hanson/Archive 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

fix

What's the opposite of the Wikipedia:Brilliant prose listing? In it's current form, this article deserves a mention on the "Worst of Wikipedia" page. I should do something to fix it, but it's hard to know where to start and it's late. Maybe later in the week. But hopefully someone else will step in and nuke this mess first - I don't even want to think about it. It's vapid tabloid stuff withot the sensation. Yuk. [[User:Tannin|Tannin] == ] 10:21, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

additions

What about Tony Abbott's role? : Would anybody knowledgeable about the infamous 'trust for honest politics', who donated to it, and its role in funding the court case(s) against Hanson care to contribute their knowledge? I have no sympathy for Hanson's policies, or Hanson for that matter, but it is interesting to observe what measures the major parties were prepared to take to shut her down. Mercurius 07:52, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Should Pauline Pantsdown and other detractors/parodiers rate a mention? Also, that there was an immediate grassroots campaign when she was in gaol to "Free Speech - Free Pauline (and David)" to try and bring her out? I don't know what it accomplished, though. The media made much of that while Pauline Hanson was in gaol she befriended a convicted murderer, and she couldn't hack that. - 211.30.46.81 05:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure - write away! Ambi 05:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The worst thing about that prision freindship was that the murdering in question convinced Pauline of her innocence, and on her release Pauline told the media that her case should be looked into. Lawsy had a big go at her for this. Apparently Pauline retracted her appeal after hearing a bit more about what the woman and her husband had done. This episode increased the public's perception of her naivity. matturn

Please Explain

I think some mention should be made of the 'please explain' incident; it's part of the culture now. --mnot 16:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

ok I've started a section on it Astrokey44 02:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

This whole article, and all associated with it, could really do with a rewrite from scratch - it's still just a piecework of random things people thought to bring up. Ambi 02:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

theres nothing wrong with articles developing that way, thats how alot of articles get written here I guess. Astrokey44 06:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I know - it's just that this one has come out at the end of it all needing a bit of help. Ambi 11:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I always thought "please explain" was interpreted by most Australians (I am one by the way)simply at face value - it showed her lack of vocabulary, refinement, etc (to a degree this was what endeared her to her supporters) Doesn't it make sense that she simply didn't know what the word meant? You have to admit it's not really a common word. Georgeslegloupier 06:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

oh I guess that makes sense, Ive added it as having several reasons why it became a catchphrase. I guess its not something you can be definite about Astrokey44 09:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Hang on - did Pauline Hanson really not know what the word xenophobic, or was she simply deconstructing a weasel word? Kransky 16:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what happened to the original PE section, but it seems to have gone. In any case, a reference (as yet unsourced) to the famous words has now been included, I'm glad to say. Just in case PH herself ever reads this, I've added a link to xenophobia. NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Links to the original interview now added. NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

John Pasquarelli, in his book "Pauline Hanson by the man who knows" (or something like that - great read) reckons that he cringed when she said "Please explain" (she genuinely didn't know the word) but later was amazed at the gain in popularity because her supporters saw it as a smart aleck ABC reporter trying to make a fool of Pauline. Different issue: shouldn't some mention be made of the money she made (from taxpayers) by standing as an independent? Something like $120K I think. As I understand it, providing she gets 4% every vote for her is a $2 donation. - Pepper 150.203.227.130 11:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, this is called public funding of election campaigns and it applies to all candidates. Naturally, the big parties are the biggest beneficiaries. It's intended as a way to reimburse candidates for expenses, without them having to solicit donations from commercial or other interests. Singling out PH would be improper, but perhaps if we included figures for all Australian political candidates that might be useful. --Pete 17:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not improper to single out PH, because other candidates spend all the money they get on political advertising (the intended use). PH did not, she just pocketed the cash. Sad mouse 18:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Additions

I have noticed that a number of significant aspects are missing. As follows:

• The letters she received from Ku Klux Klan and neo nazi members supporting her, and her subsequent reaction that she didn't mean to be a racist and didn't support such groups. This was a major news story, and affected the public view of the federal government, mainly the Australian Liberal Party and John Howard who publicly supported Pauline Hanson.

Agree to first sentence. However neither Howard nor the Liberal Party supported her, and they were more concerned about loosing votes to ON. However to Howard's discredit he didn't go out of his way to condemn her either. Kransky 16:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• The reaction from Malaysia and Indonesia who at one stage threatened war with Australia with regards to Pauline Hanson's anti-asian policies.

Balony. Only China issued a statement on her, and Mahathir Mohammed of Malaysia just shrugged off this woman of no consequence. Asians regarded her more with bemusement than fear. Kransky 16:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• The song about Pauline Hanson made by Pauline Pantsdown which had quotes from her saying "I don't like it" and "Please Explain" all over the place.

OK, worth mentioning Kransky 16:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• More information about the skits, specifically the one where we had an Asian man yelling out for Asians to go home, and saying how much he hated asians (or at least a link to somewhere else that talks about it).

Unless you are a talented writer it is difficult to retell a visual gag and make it still sound funny Kransky 16:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• When Pauline Hanson said that she thought that Australian Aboriginals should "go home", seemingly not realising that they were actually natives (this was naively copied by Liberal Party Aboriginal Affairs minister Alexander Downer), and subsequent reaction from aboriginal Australians.

I do not think Hanson said that Aboriginals should go home. Alexander Downer never has been "Aboriginal Affairs" minister. And we would refer to such a Minister as being in charge of *indigenous* affairs. Kransky 16:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• A bit more detail about those protests. It wasn't exactly "divided". 3% thought she was okay - 97% hated her. Anyone associated with One Nation was targeted, and protests were organised via national radio and national TV.

Yes there were protests in the streets and on the airway. But I don't think Australia was that much against Hanson. Kransky 16:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Something about her legendary "1% tax" or "everything tax" policy.

Oh yes, that tax of 1% on any transaction. It was copied wholesale from one loopy American pseudo economist. Probably some kind of Beardo-the-Wierdo has already given in a Wikipedia entry Kransky 16:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Her fight with the only other major One Nation candidate.

Who? She ended up breaking up with that Pasquilerri bloke, her Queensland state parliamentarians, David Oldfield etc. Kransky 16:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• The big thing where Labor and Liberal combined to make sure that Pauline Hanson didn't win a seat in federal parliament.

How? Kransky 16:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Some of the things that the Labor Party said about her, and their accusations that the Liberal Party was terrible because of being allied to her, and how they used that to win a federal election.
• How the Liberal Party distanced themselves from her.

I think that the current article is good, and I am worried that if I tried to add in such things I would struggle with WP:POV because of how much I hate her. But I still think that such things need to be included, and would like to see the article expanded a lot more. Zordrac 20:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You should add some of these to the article, dont worry if its a little POV to start with, it can always be changed Be bold :). Pauline Pantsdown is already in there though Astrokey44 00:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It is good to honestly acknowledge your own subjectivity. We are all human. Just try to work out who she is, how she thrived and how she burnt out. Your opinion about her may change if you know how much she herself has examined her life following her prison spell. Remember, in many other countries her beliefs would not be regarded as radical, but common sense. Kransky 16:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

comment by balson

"The party imploded shortly after he [Scott Balson] resigned as the party's webmaster." -- This comment was added by User:Scottb1 in this edit who I strongly suspect to actually be scott balson himself, see the current debate for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Balson. However, I thought it might actually be true so Im not sure if it should be deleted. Astrokey44 00:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Even if it is not Scott Balson, the page is about Pauline Hanson, not Scott. The extra information is unnecessary and the information is duplicated from Scott's wikipedia page, so anyone following the link to it can read about that anyway. Let's not sidetrack the article from the subject - Squilibob 09:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Phil45 decided to blank this part of the talk. Strange how new users are being created just to revert Scott Balson's part of this article. I'm not going to bother anymore, Scott Balson's page has been deleted from wikipedia anyway. - Squilibob 07:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Only 644 hits on Balson, most of which seem to be by him, rather than about him. I'm somewhat sympathetic to a trimming of the Pauline Pantsdown discussion, but not a complete chop. I'm also sympathetic to more information about the collapse, but I don't have any information that justifies Balson needing to figure prominantly. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

That's because you are ignorant and were not involved with the party. If you read the book "INSIDE ONE NATION" you will see that Balson played an integral part in the collapse. He supported the state One Nation MPs in QLD and Heather Hill after the party was de-registered in late 1999 and after Hanson had spat the dummay at them. Through his on-line paper and One Nation mailing list that he had built up over several years as the party's web master he blew the whistle on the people at the top. The party collapsed within weeks. If you are looking for an independent and adversarial confirmation of Balson's power as its web master get out "THE RISE AND FALL OF ONE NATION" by Michael Leach (its in all University Libraries). Go to page one (Introduction) at the bottom of that page you will see how he alerted thousands of One Nation members to a meeting being organised by the University of Queensland's academics - the result was the meeting was filled with One Nation party members and the speakers were booed... by the time the last speaker got up the whole thing had become a farce. To see Balson's coverage of this extraordinary meeting [go to this link].

Mark (BTW I am not Scott Balson I was a member of the party back in 1999 and followed his on-line paper every day).

PPS It's amusing to see how UNHAPPY prominent people like Brisbane's then Mayor Lord Jim Soorley was having his photograph taken by Balson at the meeting held by the University of QLD. There was a classic moment when Soorley (as first speaker) got up to address the audience... as Balson stood up and walked up to him to take his photo Soorley pointed at Balson and said (not suspecting his audience was filled with One Nation supporters)... "That man is Pauline Hanson's web master..." the hall erupted in loud clapping and applause. The faces of the other speakers was a picture to behold! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark34 (talk • contribs)

Agreed. I was not involved, and I am ignorant of everything that were not reported outside the party, and a lot that was. But what you're saying is that we can confirm that Scott's contribution included: 1. running the web page, and 2. organising a meeting at which speakers were abused. We're going to need more than that. Blowing the whistle might be notable. Assume I know nothing about it and you'll be exactly right. What happened? Regards, Ben Aveling 06:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

As you demand sir... [check out this link...] and the timing. Note that Ettridge threatened Balson with a [writ of defamation] that Balson simply published on the web. This guy had balls.

Mark

That's good. It's certainly worth adding as a link somewhere, probably to the ON article, if it isn't already. Is there any evidence as to how much of the collapse was because of them? Regards, Ben Aveling 06:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You go for it Ben. You can take my word for it that his pivotal position is only underrated because of the distorted media reporting in Oz on PHON. Murdoch hated Balson's book [Murder by Media] and The Courier Mail were instrumental in his arrest six months later in July 1999 for outing Labor MP Bill D'Arcy as a pedophile through his on-line newspaper. He wrote a book about that too... [see this link]. I had an email from Scott a few days ago. He is really pissed off because of the way he has been treated here. "Wikipedians" claiming he has big-noted himself... that's why I came to check out what gives. He now wants nothing to do with you guys which is a shame.

Mark

Erm, he did big-note himself. Ambi 10:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Who is saying Balson is high profile (other than Wikipedia). I had never heard of him. Can we have a source please?--A Y Arktos 00:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Skilful and tireless self-publicist might be more accurate; the thread above contains five links to one of his web sites - a free and easy way to bump up the search engine ratings. Carabooda 14:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

neutrality

This article seems to focus on parodies of Hanson, her "catchphrases", "attempted return", etc, and contains many phrases of dubious neutrality "Ever since then, her popularity has declined", "her relatively small...supporter base", "She has accounted for her declining popularity by blaming Prime Minister John Howard for "stealing her policies".", with almost no discussion of her policies, her maiden speech, or her achievements. And why, for a politician, is a TV appearance given such priority? Similarly, why is there a huge "declining popularity" but not "rise in politics" or similar to offset it? Why is there so much coverage of trivia, such as her fish and chip shop background, and so little of what counts - her political achievements, opponents, policies, criticisms etc. Why can't the reader tell from this article that she was far from a mere object of ridicule at her peak, but instead a mouthpiece for an unspoken right-wing voice in the Australian public? Why is there no mention of the controversies she provoked amongst Australia's Asian neighbours?

In short: this article is not neutral, and does not present a fair, balanced, coverage of the subject. We can do a lot better than this. Stevage 14:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• I guess for those of us who are not in the constituency she was representing it is a little hard to see beyond what you call the trivia, and the trivia did feature widely among the chardonnay drinking classes, those who read the broadsheet newspapers, ... - the fish and chips background was always being mentioned at the time. I neither watch television nor read the magazines that report on television programs but even in my world it seems to have penetrated that Mrs Hanson and the cricket bowler's estranged wife are star atractions of some dancing show. Doesn't mean I don't agree the article can be improved but please add rather than taking away. Feel free to express in more neutral terms though.--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I very much agree with Stevage - both this and the One Nation article could do with a lot of work, and requires a much more complex explanation of things than is given here. It's been on my to-do list for a long time, but because the task of doing this properly (by my standards, at least) is so massive, it hasn't yet happened. Rebecca 04:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I'm far from a One Nation supporter, but I can tell you for sure that at the time, her speeches were attacked much more on their supposedly "racist" content than on this trivia. Australia's Asian neighbours didn't care if she was a fish and chipper, they cared that she wanted Asians out of Australia. After all, she was a politician and the leader of a successful political party (it had huge support in Queensland, but all preferences directed away from it). Anyone know a good source for more info? Stevage 12:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• She didn't have much time for Indigenous Australians either (or as qualified by Lehmann in ref below - the Aboriginal industry and ATSIC). People of asian origin living in Australia were also upset; it wasn't merely a matter of external relations. One of the issues was there was not much behind the catch phrases. Ref this commentary. Here is a BBC view from 1998. At http://www.australian-news.com.au/maiden_speech.htm there is an "analysis" of Hanson's maiden speech and the reaction to it. Here is another response to Hanson cached version from 1997. This 1998 article published by Princeton talks about the racial tensions raised by Hanson. I would put a caveat on the racial tensions though - most people (even if not a significant minority) dismissed Hanson and racial tensions did not blow up as I recall - ie there was nothing like the Cronulla riots happening where we could say "see what Mrs Hanson made some people do"; there was no Kristallnacht. Here is a speech given by Downer in 1997 that references Hanson. Here is some more commentary about anti-Hanson bias that was prevalent at the time but gives of course a reflection of what was being said at the time in reaction to her words or what people thought they heard her say. Good luck with working on it.--A Y Arktos\^talk 01:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers! Stevage 08:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

...it should be noted that...

Hi Rebecca, I must say I'm a bit surprised at your reaction to my edits, which I thought were extremely minor. I thought the line...

Pauline Hanson won the election easily, with the largest swing away from the Labor Party in Australia -- a large proportion of her support came from traditional Labor Party voters.

was quite readable. I won't change it without getting some consensus, how about

with a large proportion of her support coming from traditional Labor Party voters.

Does that sound ok? My problem with it should be noted that is that the phrases doesn't actually mean anything. If it should be noted, we just note it. Statements on WP don't need preambles to mention that they are interesting. Ashmoo 02:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that. However, if you shoot it on sight without looking at the rest of the sentence, the result doesn't necessarily make grammatical sense. Rebecca 02:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Would this be acceptable to you?

Pauline Hanson won the election easily, with the largest swing away from the Labor Party in Australia with a large proportion of her support coming from traditional Labor Party voters.

Ashmoo 03:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a badly written sentence, but I'm sick and tired of having to quibble with you about individual sentences. Rebecca 00:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe I've been civil to you throughout, despite your mild hostility to me. If you don't have the energy to achieve consensus on a sentence you've just said is 'badly written', but are unwilling to accept my changes, or suggest an alternative, then I'm unsure as to what to do. Ashmoo 00:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hansen "If you see this I am dead" Video

I was looking for info on Pauline's "If you see this it means I am dead" video. Perhaps someone could start it --124.168.75.143 06:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait until she is dead Kransky 17:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I recall seeing a small snippet of that video back in 1997 when it was shows on the local news. Anways, I found two links which make reference to the video [1] and [2] and shall start the section.. Andrew777

From memory, it was a full blown five minute production, put out to all her party followers. Possibly she was draped in Oz flag. It was produced in response to a number of death threats she had recieved. Can anyone provide online access? And the actual line was " if you see this I have been killed..."Lentisco 02:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't the actual line "murdered"? Anyhow, I can't find the video; checked Youtube and Google, of course. But that was the bit she got famous for in the US - not that that matters, but it's a notable bit of her history. Thor Rudebeck 06:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced hearsay via David Oldfield, but the entire video was never distributed. What happened was that PH and DO wanted to do a "beyond the grave" message, and a commercial network offered to do it for free so long as they could broadcast 30 seconds of it. Of course the bit they chose was the "If you are seeing this..." bit, and the rest is history. Apparently there were various segments intened to cover different scenarios; murdered, run over by bus, retired to run dress shoppe etc. --Pete 00:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please explain

An article on PH would not be complete without a reference to her catchphrase. Instead of removing it as unsourced and POV, I ask the editor to find a source and cite it properly. We are here to build a reference work, not tear it down. --Pete

"Please explain" is mentioned on the BBC website. It was in response to a question asked by Tracey Curro in October 1996. Bill Tegner 09:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody have a link to an actual transcript of this alleged incident, or better still an actual video file? The trouble is, despite much searching, I can't find a single reputable source that confirms she actually said: "Please Explain". I'm pretty sure what she actually said was just: "Explain?" (with an expression of "WTF?"), but I'm only relying on my memory of the interview. You'd think such a famous incident would have been immortalized on YouTube by now, but all that's on there are dozens of videos of various nonentities claiming she said it. I rather suspect "Please Explain" is a bit like: "Play it again Sam".

Racial Makeup (i.e. genetic composition)

IT looks like this topic is going to become a revert war / contentious issue, (i.e. the recent news from The Sunday Telegraph reporting PH has mixed heritage). I've tried to insert it in and it's been politely rewritten out and now I see it's back. I think the edit as it stands today is good for one reason that editors not familiar with PH need to know - PH made and continues to make her name on the back of her widely reported racist views - hence her own PROVEN racial makeup is relevant to her bio - in just the same way as Hitlers partial Jewish blood/Lack of Ayran race is relevant to discussions of his politics.

--PeterMarkSmith 16:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you find an example of her making relevant comments on race and genetic background, rather than culture? I'm assuming the reference to Hitler gives us all an insight into your impartial views on Pauline Hanson. --Pete 05:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"We're bringing in people from South Africa at the moment. There's a huge amount coming into Australia, who have diseases; they've got AIDS," Ms Hanson told AAP.

"They are of no benefit to this country whatsoever; they'll never be able to work.

"And what my main concern is, is the diseases that they're bringing in and yet no one is saying or doing anything about it."

A Department of Immigration spokeswoman rejected the claims

[3]

And I believe she's said similar things about Asians. The reason that's relevant (by which I assume you mean racist) is that it's untrue. Africans imigrants are no more likely than any other imigrants to be 'diseased'. In effect, she's saying "oh, I'm not racist, it's not that I don't want to ban them because they're black/asian, I want to ban them because all blacks/asians are diseased".

You're right that she claims to be defending the culture of the white race against the culture of the asian and african races, rather than defending the white race from the asian and african races. But the distinction is hair splitting, unless you claim that there is no connection between race and culture.

Regards, Ben Aveling 21:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

None of the above is talking about race as in genetic make-up, the sort of things which are supposedly tracked through DNA tests. I can't see any connection. --Pete 22:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

How can you seperate race and genetic make-up? Ben Aveling 21:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. You could ask PW Botha. Do you have an encyclopaedic point to make, or are you just wanting to use Wikipedia to poke fun at Pauline Hanson? --Pete 21:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

User: Beneaththelandslide suggests the results are themselves vague and ill-defined, and the test itself has not gained interntional and scientific regard.... Anybody got any info on the accuracy of these things. Albatross2147 12:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• The test was simply done for media publicity; it was not done for a scientific purpose.
• The test's results signify the blood of someone's ancestors from thousands of years ago. Humans have migrated a bloody lot and the people of the Middle East today, for example, are not the people of the Middle East thousands of years ago. To state that she is of 'Middle Eastern ancestry' is in itself vague (semitic? berber? arab? hebrew? phonecian?) and nothing but misleading. The media runs these stories for the sole purpose of throwing shit at Hanson.
• You are simply out to slander this woman—why else would you do it? michael ^talk 12:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Rather than argue over whether it is notable or not, or even whether it is slander (?!?), is her reaction to it at all notable? She blamed it on "rape and pillage" in times of war - rather then love. lol. Now i just gotta find that source. it was www.smh.com.au Merbabu 13:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Both the results and her reaction to them are is notable, because she has made such milage out of race issues. I note that we start the article by saying "Her father was an English immigrant" for the same reason, it's relevant. What I don't understand is Michael's claim saying that someone has Middle Eastern ancesty is slander. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is media-created tripe done for one purpose. Why is Middle Eastern ancestry 'slander'? Because of media-created hype against people of Middle Eastern ancestry; surely the people here are smart enough to see through the bullshit. What better way, then, to discredit Hanson, by making her 'one of them'. It is a bogus test with vague results, done simply to embarrass Hanson and create some news. If you include this nonsense, it must be out of spite and one's own political beliefs, or you simply want to lower Wikipedia to the level of Murdoch's tabloids. michael ^talk 21:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with media-created hype against people of middle eastern ancestry, but it has everything to do with Hanson's dislike of anything that is not 100% Australian, a position of which she has made much mileage. Perhaps it's even a type of hypocrisy. Merbabu 09:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

1. If the test was done, the results were as stated, and the quotation is correct, then removing it is not acceptable, as it seems to be politically motivated. The claim that the test, or that mentioning it here, was politically motivated won't wash; if it's true, then it's true.
2. One the other hand, no citations are given for any of the quotations — and quotations sections are deprecated in the MoS. I'd be happy to see the whole thing disappear (though relevant quotations – properly cited – could appear in the article's text). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And there we have it: the Wikipediatiser. michael ^talk 22:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it goes. Humans can immigrate pretty fast you know....You guys know that South Vietnam, eg, was a Cambodian populated area, prior to the 17th century, and that was only 400 years ago. Aside from that the test is a publicity stunt. This is coming from an Australian of Asian descent too, by the way...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The question isn't whwther it's a publicity stunt (WP:OR) but whether it's verifiable. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The question is whether it belongs in a biographical article in an encyclopaedia. To begin with, the thing is a media stunt, and it has no impact on Ms Hanson's life or career. It's not notable as it stands. If it becomes a major issue, thousands of Lebanese marching in protest, questions asked in Parliament, front-page headlines for a month, Renee Zellwegger signed to star in "The DNA Diaries", then it's notable.--Pete 00:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely not all media stunts are non-notable - I'd suggest the 'are you xenophobix question' that resulted in 'please explain' was also a media stunt, and that is highly notable. At the moment this issue is notable. Whether it stays notable is something that only time can prove.Merbabu 09:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not even notable now. Go check recent news items. I can spot just one line over the past three days. It's faded. --Pete 18:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Second, the test appears to be of limited scientific credibility. We don't know what it is measuring nor how accurate it is. --Pete 00:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Scientific credibility is not a requirement for notability. Merbabu 09:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No, but the lack of standards diminishes the value of the "test". --Pete 18:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thirdly, it is not relevant to Ms Hanson's career as a politician. Despite those who conflate race and culture, Ms Hanson never to my knowledge made a fuss over genetics and racial characteristics. A supposed Middle-Eastern ancestry of hundreds or thousands of years ago is simply not comparable to anything she has said or done in her lifetime.

Her reaction is notable to a 'politician' whose 'career' has made a lot of mileage out of race - even if she can actually make the distinction between race and culture, i'd suggest a lot of her political supporters can't. Merbabu 09:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that this group includes you. We are not responsible for the misconceptions of our readers. If you cannot provide a source, please do not try to invent one. We must stick to the facts. --Pete 18:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be a place where political partisans can whitewash their favorites and trash their enemies. We must observe a certain aloofness if we are to be a credible resource. To those who want to include this material, I suggest that they write it up on wikinews, and if, in a month's time, the story still has any traction or resonance, then include it here. In the meantime, I shall remove any mention of it that does not fit withing the guidelines of WP:CITE and WP:BLP. --Pete 00:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

that's correct, we can't "whitewash our favourites". ;-) Merbabu 09:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If I cite the quotations/statements made by PH when shown the results will the Hansonites let this stand? In a way her remarks are quite neutral but informative and indicative of her own views and relevant IMHO to her bio.

--PeterMarkSmith 07:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've CITED the quotation that shows Hansons notable response to discovering her possible genetic makeup.

--PeterMarkSmith 09:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and it doesn't seem to be particularly notable. "Please explain" is notable because it has lasted, and as I have said before, we cannot have much of an article without that and other notable quotes. This DNA thing is a passing trifle. Check again in a month.--Pete

'conflate race and culture'

Weasel words. Are you really claiming that when she says things like "people from South Africa" she's not actually speaking of "people from South Africa", only of people who have a South African culture (whatever that is). Given that the definition of South African culture is that it is the culture of the South African peoples, that's a pretty meaningless distinction. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like your interpretation. We are not allowed to interpret. We p[rovide the facts, correctly sourced. --Pete 18:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

My interpretation of the facts is that when she says "Asians" and "Africans" she means "Asians" and "Africans". Is there a different interpretation that doesn't rely on words not meaning what they mean? Regards, Ben Aveling 22:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Rape and Pillage Comment Proves Hanson's Racist Views?

Further to the above topic re: Hanson's poorly reported comments appeared to me that she is blaming her mixed genetic makeup on "Rape and Pillage". Now considering that her racial makeup is mostly white (9 per cent originating in the Middle East, 32 per cent from Italy, Greece or Turkey and 59 per cent from northern Europe) - is she saying that a poor white ancestor of hers in the past was raped by Middle Easterns and Italians/Greeks/Turks? I suspect she is but it's probably unproveable without a transcript of the interview itself.

--PeterMarkSmith 15:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ms Hanson is no historian, but I suggest that most folk of British extinction would have some Mediterranean ancestry, given that Britain was ruled by Rome for centuries, and there was a significant French addition in 1066. The crusades later on would have brought in Middle-Eastern genes, one way or another. --Pete 21:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct, she's not. But it is still interesting to note that her reaction was to blame "Rape and Pillage" rather than colonialisation. I have an awful image of what must have been in her mind for her to say that! ("BlacksOnRedheads"?!). $Insertformulahere$ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterMarkSmith (talk • contribs) 04:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

On reviewing the cited source, it doesn't back up your claim. We don't know what the "rape and pillage" comment was in reference to, and in fact, if you keep on reading, you'll see that her "some war" comment was a later addition to the "rape and pillage" phrase for which we have no context. Concatenating fragments of speech without context is hardly good encyclopaedic practice. I'm also interested to learn that a Torres Strait Islander was found, using the same test, to contain half European and half Asian ancestry, with no mention of Melanesia. On the basis of the poverty of the source, I'm going to keep on removing this rubbish. It is a news stunt, not biographical material; the test is given more legitimacy than it actuaally possesses, and the supposed quote turns out to be confected. --Pete 13:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The test itself is not valid so the inclusion of "Ms. Hanson's genetic makeup has 9 per cent originating in the Middle East, 32 per cent from Italy, Greece or Turkey and 59 per cent from northern Europe" is grossly misleading and should be removed immediately. michael ^talk 13:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the validity of the test is irrelevant. It's her reaction to it that is the point.Merbabu 13:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Her reaction is based on the presumption that the test is valid, which it is not, and therefore it is obvious that Hanson was deceived by the media and put on the spot. It is nothing more than the media inventing news in the absence of there being any and targeting the woman knowing she'd give such a reaction; Wikipedia should not stoop to the low level of the tabloids. If we reproduce this misleading information, we are simply deceiving people in the same manner that the media is. michael ^talk 14:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with the suggestion that it was a low set up based on no scientific basis - but her reaction is genuine. She believed it was genuine, and we got to hear her (at least partly negative) views on the matter which is the point. Again, there is nothing misleading if we state the cited facts, and emphasise her reaction - i've even tweaked the article to highlight the suggestion that the test is flawed (which ironically is not cited yet). Merbabu 14:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It is nonsense to include such a quote, which is very misleading unless background (explaining the test is invalid) is given to it. Even so, shouldn't quotes be on Wikiquote instead? And isn't this just another example of some media nonsense having to be stuck on a Wikipedia page simply because it's there? This is completely irrational and it absolutely stinks of opportunism to throw more shit at Hanson. I'm sure there's plenty, absolutely plenty, of delicious Hanson quotes out there in a bevy of different media articles: how about we all get them too? michael ^talk 14:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, feel free to provide the background to the test which I'm sure was mischievous in its intent - but the notability's in the reaction it illicited to something she clearly believed was for real. But i suspect this is just going towards a talk page war of attrition. Even though there is no good reason to remove it (apart from more whitewash of what many see as an ugly and offensive phenomenon) I would agree with you that there is more important things on wikipedia to look into than this single quote. Merbabu 14:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that the test has no scientific basis. It not be 100% reliable, but I'm sure that it's not completely random either. If she hasn't made such milage out of race, perhaps it might not be relevant, but she has, so it is. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - there's little value for example mentioning that Peter Beattie underwent the same test with even more startling revelations as he does not make race an issue in his politics as Qld premier. However if Hanson is going to live by the racial sword then she better be prepared to suffer the sword turning against her. Really what is she now? No longer a pure bred english/irish fit to lead the white race (you ARE aware she's aligning herself now with Neo-Nazi's and Holocaust deniers?) but a simply mongrel mixed breed woman ... (in fact - like a lot of us).

--PeterMarkSmith 09:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Your views are abhorrent. This is precisely the sort of smear that WP:BLP aims to eliminate. I reject your views, and again ask where Hanson has ever made comments about race in terms of genetics. National origin, sure. Cultural distinctions, sure. But not race in the sense you are trying to push. --Pete 09:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is it a smear to say that she is partially Middle Eastern? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not and I didn't say it was. I was responding to PeterMarkSmith's abhorrent views. --Pete 12:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me find the news corp article that reports Ms Hanson aligning herself with a neo nazi and holocaust denier - it's quite recent. It should also be quoted as it is a window on her political views. --PeterMarkSmith 15:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

There are just two issues here: is the quotation verifiable, and is it relevant to the article? the former is unquestionable; the latter is slightly less clear, but the discussion here demonstrates that even those who wish to remove it hold that it is relevant — their arguments are unrelated to any Wikipedia policy, tend to be OR, and are mosly presented with little attempt to disguise the fact that they're merely attempts to defend the subject of the article against negative coverage.

I can't see that there are any good grounds for removing the quotation (except for what I said above about deleting the whole quotations section — in which case the quotations should be included in the main text). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should cease projecting your own insecurities onto others. I don't mind at all if the article contains negative material. Pauline Hanson's career is full of monumental gaffes and blunders, and we would be remiss if we did not include them. But this DNA test thing is a media stunt and Hanson's quote in supposed reaction is not sourced well enough for us to include it. I'm not disputing the quote, but in response to what, precisely? The media story doesn't tell us and we should not jump to conclusions as to what it was. That's speculation and that's OR. --Pete 14:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're so concerned with Wikipedia policies, you might have a look at WP:NPA. It isn't really worth replying to offhand cod-psychoanalysis, but I'll do so anyway: I have no interest in this person, of whom I'd never heard before I was asked to look at what was happening here. My interest is solely with the quality of the article and the behaviour of those warring over it.

I'll add only that, if the edit war continues over this I shall protect the article. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could respond to the points I made about the article. I have refuted your erroneous suppositions. Please explain (heh) why you want to keep and protect material which does not comply with WP:BLP. --Pete 15:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to get out of this, but for a second time you've mentioned WP:BLP without actually showing how it does not comply. --Merbabu 15:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Without trying to be flip, which part of "not sourced well enough" do you fail to understand? Nobody disputes the quote, but the context is doubtful. We only have the media outlet's interpretation, which you want to reinterpret as part of a biographical article. --Pete 15:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand, i don't agree. Merely repeating "not well sourced" isn't actually a case (particularly when it's made a number of news outlets this week). Oh, please show some manners. Merbabu 15:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. There is only one source, the original newspaper article, even if other outlets reprinted or rewrote it. Again, I note that the context is dubious. Do you see how this is, or do you insist that we and our readers take this media-stunting newspaper at full face value? --Pete 16:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Initially you denied a source, then it was all about scientific validity of the test (no there could well be none but that's irrelevant), and now you don't dispute the quote, but are suggesting caution over "context", and now basing your objections by tip-toeing through where "interpretation" is appropriate or not, and where we can or can't take things at "face value". And, as on BLP noticeboard you are suggesting summarising is inherently a re-interpretation and thus invalid. hmmm Merbabu 16:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You should address the points I raise, not how I raise them. If you can't see the several problems in using the newspaper article as a source for biographical material, then your participation in discussion adds heat but no light. Let's keep our eye on the ball, please. --Pete 15:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Pete, I'm sorry, but I don't see the points you are trying to make. You've said that it was a media stunt, which everyone already knows. You've said that maybe the science was dodgy, but provided no evidence for that. You've said that there is only one source, which is wrong. There are multiple sources, one of which is the original source. Having been so widely reported, if there was anything substantially wrong in the original someone would have noticed it by now. (Pauline, perhaps?) Anyway, it's not our problem. We report things as they appear to be, and if the agreed facts change, we can change too. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made the points, good to see you admit you don't understand them. Let's take your problems one by one.

1. It's a media stunt. This raises the issue of quality of reporting and credibility. We're not looking at fact-based journalism here, but a manufactured story.
2. The science is dodgy - if you read the whole story, we have a Torres Strait Islander found to be half European and half Asian, but zero Melanesian. We're not given details of the test, how it operates, what is tested, margin of error etc.
3. There is only one source. Reprinting the original story doesn't provide a second source, nor does paraphrasing and summarising it. If you have another source, then please share it with us.
4. It hasn't been widely reported. There's only one source and some very biased commentary. There has been nothing fresh for a week. This is a dead story. It's not notable enough to be used in a biographical article.

All of the above points have been made repeatedly. What don't you understand about them? --09:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

They have been made repeatedly. Do you think we haven't noticed that? Ben Aveling 10:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Pete, I'm sorry, but I don't see the points you are trying to make." That was you, just a short while ago, wasn't it? --Pete 12:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

We've seen you repeat them ad nausium. And they still don't matter. In reply, one source is enough, so long as it's a good source, which it is. The fact that it has been reprinted is nice, because it shows that other people also think the source is valid, but it doesn't matter because one good source is enough. The fact that it's a media stunt does not matter. Take the fake arabs that exposed various politican scandals in Britain, again, a stunt, and a good one. The science may not be perfect, but that's not the point. It almost certainly isn't totally random, even if it isn't perfect. Again, it doesn't matter. We are just reporting what it says - to dismiss it because it might not be right isn't what we do. We say "a test said..." and let the reader decide whether they refuse to believe the test (as you appear to) or if they accept the results of the test as true (as Pauline does, I will point out) or if they accept it as something possible but not proven. And the fact that this has stopped appearing in the papers is also irrelevant. Lastly, everything stops appearing in the papers eventually. But even if the papers had ignored it totally, it would still be a notable fact, so long as we could source it somehow, which we have. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The source is not good enough for a biographical article because it is unclear on context, and for your version of the quote to work, context is everything. You insist on trying to wedge in that "rape and pillage" phrase, and none of the increasingly forced constructions work. The one and only source you provide says, When told of the results, the former fish and chip shop owner appeared flustered, making references to "rape and pillage" in ancient times.... Specifically saying that she attributes the results of the test to rape and pillage is not supported by the source. In fact, given the nature of the story, I suggest that she does not attribute the results of her test to rape and pillage, because if she had said so explicitly, then the paper would surely have used her full and exact words.

The science may not be perfect, you say, but if it cannot pick a Torres Strait Islander as Melanesian, instead saying he is of half European and half-Asian ancestry, then it is so very far from perfect as to be totally unreliable.

We don't know if Pauline accepts the test as accurate. It is strongly implied that she does, but again, the context is not explicit. The one and only source is a tiny bit evasive on this point.

And, as I point out, the story is dead. It appeared in the Courier-Mail and in other papers from the same publisher, we have a biased opinion piece from the SMH the next day quoting it, and that's that. It ran for two days and died. It's not notable enough, it's not well enough sourced, and it's just not relevant to be used in a biographical article. --Pete 12:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete, contrary to your apologism-your assertion Pauline Hanson has never talked about race, only place and culture- she did indeed talk of race once on an edition of 7:30 REPORT or LATELINE. The interviewer asked whether or not she considered people who were ethnically, i.e. racially, Asian, however, born in Australia, to be Asian or Australian. She answered the latter and the interviewer indicated the discredited "research" from which she drew her conclusion that we were being somehow swamped by Asians argued the former. Her response? She smiled and wouldn't, or couldn't, explain herself.

You are confusing two different things. Her maiden speech made it clear that she was concerned about Asian culture(s) swamping traditional Australian values. Not Asian people. The article contains the relevant quote. Perhaps you should read it. --Pete 03:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Either way, you talk about race as if you believe racism is only defined by prejudice and bigotry germinating in a perceived inferiority in genetic makeup, which is wrong. Both sociologists and biologists understand Race, like Gender, exists in the social dimension and that in this dimension racism is cultivated and reinforced. Race is an experience as well as a genetic property. A white supremacist might not argue directly that people of colour are biologically inferior but this is by default asserted when flawed logic is used to demonise or dehumanise ethnic minorities because apparent behaviour observed, however, accommodated, or ignored, in white citizens, is considered peculiar to the minority in question, for example, people of colour carrying communicable diseases. The observer, or "observer", rather, does not live in an apolitical vaccuum. When-so-ever Hanson "observes" something about place or culture it is "observed" through her own inane prejudice and bigotry. A perfect example of this is domestic and sexual violence "skyrocketing" in indigenous communities. First, the issue are one of Gender, not Race, but, hey, the popular press need to make a buck, Pete. Further, observe the statistics that reflect the disproportionate number of attacks on women, or children, by white men versus the number of attacks on women, or children, by non-white men. Or, those on women by men versus those on men by women. Are people of colour the problem? Maybe it's white men, or men, in general, but, hey, those men have newspapers to sell. Pauline Hanson has made a career out of dissing social services in place to support indigenous communites with senseless claims of "counter-racism". This is like apologists for racism suggesting "pom" carries the same weight as "nigger". To suggest Pauline Hanson's comments are not racist, but meer observations of place and culture, is ridiculous and fallacious, and simply ignores Race in its cultural, historical and social contexts.

Ah, this looks like a rant to me. Do you have anything of value to add to our coverage of the subject? That was a rhetorical question, by the way. --03:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

First, Pete, "Australian values" is meaningless. How exactly are the values of scions of Chinese migrants from 1850 any less Australian than those of British migrants from 1950? Pauline Hanson's speech germinates in prejudice. To the point, you stated above that Pauline Hanson has never talked about race in its genetic context and this is untrue: (a) the "academic" source for the maiden speech defines Asian as people with Asian racial features, not those born abroad or with different values, so whether directly or indirectly she is as guilty as charged; and (b) the biological and the cultural contexts of race are not as separate as you erroneously imply in what appears to be your attempt to sympathise with Pauline Hanson which has absolutely no place in an encylopaedic entry. Engage with Racial theory, or common sense, and you will see it is both absurd, and stupid, to suggest the two do not inform each other as far as racism is concerned. For example, a black man is a black man, ethically-speaking, whether you're observing, or "observing" the values of his culture or not. "Observations" are informed by prejudice and bigotry, Pete. Just because Pauline Hanson says she speaks of values and not ethicity doesn't mean the woman's "understanding" of a culture's values isn't coloured by her prejudice and bigotry.

Poorly sourced reported "rape and pillage" comments

I have opened discussion on the BLP noticeboard. --Pete 14:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How can you justify the above title (which I have reworked if you don't mind) - "Poorly sourced rape" sounds very weird! The quote is sourced... the media has reported the whole deal in a shoddy manner tho. --PeterMarkSmith 15:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR

PS. Not naming names, but some people here are getting pretty close to violating 3RR. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR is of limited application when removing poorly sourced crap from a biographical article, but thanks for your concern! --Pete 11:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It is of concern though when white washing well sourced negative portrayals of people. ;-) Merbabu 11:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not well sourced, it's negative, and that's good enough for it to be removed under WP:BLP. As I've said before, I'm happy for negative coverage of Ms Hanson to be included in the biographical article, because she has stuck her foot in her mouth on national television any number of times and she has committed colossal political blunders that set the nation talking. All negative, all well-sourced, all well-known. This DNA test thing is a manufactured story and it's short-lived crap. It doesn't belong in a biographical article if we are to have any standards at all. --Pete 12:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that why you have now reverted at least four 4 times in the last 24, Skyring? Merbabu 12:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Skyring, it's now 5 times for you - at least. why are you exempt from 3RR?Merbabu 12:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not. See comments above re WP:BLP. Please don't reinsert this material until you have a consensus to do so. --Pete 12:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Then don't revert 5 imes - no-one is exempt. It's an edit dispute. SImply saying that it is poorly sourced is a matter of opinion (and wrong). Furthermore, saying the quote is 'untrue' is a fabrication on your behalf - no-one, not even Pauline denied happened.Merbabu 13:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mongrel

I quote - from Wikipedia itself ... Mongrel refers to mixed ancestry' - 'nuf said. --PeterMarkSmith 10:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually improving the article.

For consistency, someone (ie not me, or not now anyway ;-) should go through and turn all the inline references into footnotes. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Merbabu, looks good. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

End

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pauline_Hanson&action=edit&section=18

The information about Hanson's ancestry is grossly incorrect:

• It was a media stunt designed simply to prod Hanson into (yet another) controversial (controversy? Oh my!) statement.
• The test is obviously incorrect. Pete's Melanesian point says spades about it's inaccuracy. Further points were also raised as to the test's inaccuracy regarding population movements, ambiguity of ethnicity categories, etc.
• It is yet another comment from a woman with a bevy of "better" ones.
• Shouldn't quotes be on Wikiquote anyway?

To include it is to be deceptive. I will not see Wikipedia deceive readers because of the politically-motivated actions of a few individuals here. Points have been raised, valid points, repeatedly—and they have been quickly ignored by those who choose to. Quit your smug ignorance. michael ^talk 10:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The test may or may not be inaccurate. Thus i agree it's inclusion as comment on her ancestry is poor. It was better as a quote - the point is not about her ancestry, but her reaction to such an ancestry. There is a difference. While I do not support the removal of the information, i would support removing it as a comment on her ancestry. Ie, although no-one has actually provided any evidence for the test being 'bogus', it wouldn't surprise me.Merbabu 10:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've actually removed it from the early life section. You are correct in saying that it's inclusion there seemed to be there as a test on her ancestry. it is included further down in the article as a comment on the issue of the test and her reaction to it which is far more appropriate. Merbabu 10:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The test called a Melanesian half Asian and half European! The test bases its results on where humans were located thousands of years ago, before massive human migration. The people of the "middle east" today are not the people of the "middle east" thousands of years ago. The categories are overly broad. The test is both misleading and inaccurate. These points were already raised further; you must have missed or ignored them.

I ask for:

• Removal of any and all information about the bogus test.
• Relocation of all quotes to Wikiquote with a link provided.

That is all. michael ^talk 10:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As has been said many times the validity of the test is not relevant - rather it is the reaction that is notable. As has been said, such a test on Peter Beatie, around who notions of race are not a controversy, the invalid test would not be relevant. You must have missed or ignored that. Merbabu 10:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What you're saying is that to deceive someone, put them on the spot, and then spread a heated comment they made in response to the deception is fine and proper. What a joke! To somehow consider that it is notable is a joke regardless, but to do it knowing that it is nothing but a response to deception is appalling. Beattie simply used the test for his own political ends, so he could peddle multiculturalism and attack Hanson—which is him deceiving people too!

If these are the grounds on which you are basing your argument, you must be on ground zero on September 11, 2001. michael ^talk 11:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) What does Pauline Hanson's ancestry have to do with September 11? (Or was that some sort of obscure personal attack that I'm not bright enough to see?) And what does Pauline Hanson's ancestry have to do with multiculturalism? And, since we're repeating ourselves, I'll point out again that a failure in one test does not means that the test is always wrong - perhaps someone got their samples mixed up that one time. Certainly, it is possible that the test was wrong in her case, but it's more likely that it was right. And it seems incredible to me that you claim that the test results were invented with an intent to deceive. Maybe the test was wrong, maybe not, but to say that they were a deliberate deception would be a very strong claim to make. As an aside, I have to say that the whole thing does make me slightly curious about what such a test would say about myself - which I'm sure was the real purpose of the stunt, to sell tests, not to 'smear' anyone. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt the newspaper's intentions are the real reason for behind those insisting on its removal. The event happend - deceitful or not - and it has been reported. THe fact that there are a number of people who passionately want its removal is only confirming its noteworthiness. Merbabu 11:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What about the Schapelle Corby article. The new accusations this week by the 'friend' were also reported as a media stunt by tabloid TV and under dubious circumstances (ie, paid comment). WOuld you also suggest that these should therefore not be reported in WP? Merbabu 11:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

So now the reason it's so important is because some people are bothering to argue against it? Two people—in the whole of this country—--bothering to argue with you on Wikipedia makes this notable? A pretty bloody poor standard for notability! Everything, it seems, needs to be on Wikipedia if reported in the news. I'd love to see a new rule, where nothing can be added from a media article less than two months old.

But, to the point, you're again failing to counter me! You believe, that despite the test being incorrect and misleading; despite her comments being set up; despite her making plenty of heated comments in the past which this one compares to poorly; despite the tiny media coverage—that it is notable and must be on the page?! michael ^talk 11:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me spell it out yet again one last time: yes notable, the test is irrelevant (incorrect, misleading, whatever as I have said over and over). She was told she was X significant per cent of Middle Eastern descent - she believed it - and she replied negatively. It's very telling. Again, it is interesting that people are so determined to see it go. Why? Merbabu 11:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

(yet another edit conflict) No, we don't agree that the test is incorrect. Just that it might be. Not that it would matter if the test is incorrect - her response to it is still intersting. Nor do we agree that she was set-up. I'm sure they were aware there was a possiblity that the results would be 'interesting' but I'm equally sure they didn't fake the results. (They want to sell tests, not do anyone over.) Not that it would matter if she was set up. Nor do we agree that media coverage was tiny, it was covered in several papers, again, not that it matters. Even if it hadn't been covered at all, it would still be a fascinating development that says a lot about her as a person and (more importantly) about her as a political figure. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

So, it's inclusion is there because it's 'interesting', 'fascinating' and 'says a lot about her as a person'? This isn't a Pauline Hanson psychological study, and it's not a place to stick things that are 'interesting' and 'fascinating': it's an encyclopedia article!. Your ignorance is... astounding. The test is vague and misleading (not fake), as shown earlier. The news story was, I believe, one story for the Newscorp papers, and one story for the Fairfax papers, and one opinion piece—in reality only three stories. It is not notable. It simply because you hold to the belief that it's 'interesting' and 'fascinating' that you want it included: not that it's notable. If it was notable there would be a continual media flurry for weeks and days! There isn't. michael ^talk 11:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Under the verifiability policy, the test for including material is whether we can verify something, not whether it is true: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." We're not here to work out if the test was correct or the results accurate. We're only here to report what reliable sources have reported. Michael, if don't think this material should be included, then you need to make a case on policy and guidelines, but arguing that it shouldn't be included because an editor has determined that the test is inaccurate (OR), you don't like it and everyone else is ignorant is not going to do it. Also, Michael, please be careful, you're skating WP:NPA. Sarah 12:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've always skated NPA, aware that it means I'll never be an admin, despite my work here. And I consider policy secondary to decency, honesty and commonsense. I'm well aware that it's our very own OR that has determined the test is inaccurate, but, again, I have no intention to deceive readers even if this contravenes policy. I am also sure that the verifiability policy is not the only policy we have, and I'm still waiting for the policy that dictates that information from media articles cannot be included within a space of (at least) two months, to ensure it really is notable. This nonsense isn't notable. It's a joke. They have not a leg to stand on except a policy that more or less states that "if someone said it, despite it being mentioned in only three news articles, over two days (minor coverage); despite it being misleading (complete deception): it must be included".

Do not for a moment be so arrogant and think you can talk down to me. michael ^talk 12:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You are not being talked down to. Sarah has put it very well. Albatross2147 13:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a reason other than "she said it" for it to be in there. michael ^talk 22:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is that we are asked to repeat ourselves - as if we have never said it. Read it again. Next thing you know you'll be telling us the test is invalid - the response to which is also included here many times on request from the whitewashers.Merbabu 00:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"The Whitewashers", eh? Can't wait for the movie. michael ^talk 00:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Reaction, reaction, reaction ("she said it"). This is the base you stand on. On a small incident, completely irrelevant to her whole life and career, based on a misleading test, reported in only three different stories over two days. Years after Hanson's death, will her biographer sit down and include this incident and her reaction? I've written articles on Australian historical figures—from the left and the right—and I don't include petty bullshit like this. michael ^talk 00:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

See, i knew you'd repeat the test's allged but irrelevant invalidity. Anything new? --Merbabu 00:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Years after Hanson's death, will her biographer sit down and include this incident and her reaction? I've written articles on Australian historical figures—from the left and the right—and I don't include petty bullshit like this." Further point is that it is irrelevant to her entire life and career. So many Wikipedia articles aren't a proper biography, they're "slap" from this media article, and "slap" from that media article; based on the idea that it was said, or done, so it must be there (irrelevant of how petty or non-notable it is). It's why articles on modern-day 'extremists', whatever their creed, are so bad: because they're just conduits for media crap. (i.e. Something negative was said about the person at hand, so it therefore must be slapped in the article; this is done under the guise of it being "notable", but it is, in reality, just an editor taking an oppourtunity to attack the person at hand.)

Do not think I'm blind. I see through the bullshit, whether it comes from you or the media. I haven't moved away from my earlier points because I'm sticking to my guns; I'm merely elaborating on them further in the hope to getting the point across to you and your comrades.

Nice try at baiting me, though. michael ^talk 00:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

baiting? Why is it personal all of sudden? whatever - there are better things to do one's time than put with incivililty. perhaps that's your sim anyway. you're too funny. Merbabu 01:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of baiting, perhaps we could have an explanation for this amusing little wish? --Pete 04:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I was not talking down to you, I was trying to bring the debate back to a policy basis. That is all. NPA doesn't just apply to people who want to be admins, it applies equally to everyone, including you. Your name calling, personal attacks and commentary about other editors is disruptive and if you continue you may be blocked. This is what I was trying to nicely tell you yesterday. I am sorry you chose to interpret that as "arrogance". If you truly value decency, as you claim, you will find a way to express yourself and communicate with other good faith editors without insulting them, calling them names and general unpleasantness. If you are simply incapable of decency, perhaps you ought to consider whether working collaboratively with people really is for you. Sarah 13:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Lecture someone else, Sarah. You are talking down. You're talking down a teacher talks to a disobedient child. Get off the pedestal and don't spout such bizarre lines as "simply incapable of decency". Adminship isn't a licence to talk to others with contempt. It's fucking insulting.

I'd rather deal with an honest asshole (which I would really like to see around here) than a bunch of ass-kissing, arrogant snakes (which I see in spades). This project just goes to hell that little bit further every day; I wonder how long until the articles I've written are bastardised in the way all of these are? michael ^talk 23:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hanson reported to share platform with Neo Nazi and Holocaust Deniers... Propose new section Current Events?

As promised .... News Corp Article. Supposedly or allegedly Ms Hanson is sharing a stage with Richard Krege and Welf Herfurth.

... Mr Krege is regarded by fellow Holocaust deniers as an expert on the notorious Treblinka concentration camp, in Poland. Although 800,000 Jews and others died there, he claims just 5000 perished of disease and none were killed.

... Welf Herfurth, a long-time activist with Germany's neo-nazi National Democratic Party before he moved to Sydney.

Perhaps - as a way of resolving the edit wars above we could simply put her racial mix issue and the above into a Current Event paragraph...? --PeterMarkSmith 15:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand the problems with the DNA test thing, I suggest. The latest version is untrue as well as being poorly sourced. As for "sharing a platform" with right wing loonies, geez, but how desperate are you? The thing hasn't happened yet, it's obviously a media beat-up, and it's hardly notable unless something notable actually happens. If she embraces the pair of nutters and forms a new party, it's notable. If she picks up a plank of the platform and beats them over the head with it, it's notable. Hold onto it and see how it turns out on the night. --Pete 17:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand that her reaction - not the test - as stated before is notable. You don't understand that her DECISION alone - to share the platform with notorious persons is notable. Stop whitewashing her.

Regards - --PeterMarkSmith 04:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I know that when I investigate your claims, they turn out not to be true. Here is the speakers list for the Inverell Forum 2007. Although the names of your two right-wing nutters appear on it, that of Pauline Hanson is not to be found. Funny, you think they would have made a big deal about having Pauline Hanson as a speaker. Now, you were saying it was her decision to "share the platform" with these guys? You want to stick with that, or you want to admit you stuffed up and repeatedly put an untruth into a Wikipedia article? --Pete 04:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Rape and Pillage

Our article said, 'a DNA test reported that Hanson has some Middle Eastern ancestry, which she attributed to "rape and pillage",'. However, Ms Hanson did not attribute the result to "rape and pillage", because the print article does not state this, instead saying, 'When told of the results, the former fish and chip shop owner appeared flustered, making references to "rape and pillage" in ancient times'. For Wikipedia to state this implication as solid fact is to engage in original research. For biographies of living people we have to be very careful of what we say, and close enough is not good enough. We have to be accurate in every detail. --Pete 04:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed accuracy and NOR are vital, thus, the simple and obvious solution would be to simply state as the sources states: When told of the results Pauline Hanson was ‘reported to appear flustered, making references to "rape and pillage" in ancient times'.

Furthermore (and once again), trying to make a call on the validity of a newspaper article when you have no other information IS original research. Merbabu 04:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you now recognise this. Care to issue an apology for inserting something I repeatedly pointed out was untrue? There's only one source and she never attributed her ancestry to rape and pillage. --Pete 04:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

lol - an apology? Thus, you accept my solution. Great. Please insert it. thanks.Merbabu 04:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Skyring, i like your changes, but have added to them in-line with our apparent agreement above. Please check the actual words. Also, is there a better way to cater for the fact that the veracity of the test is irrelevant. The way you have written seems to shift the focus from her reaction to the the validity of the test. Merbabu 04:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No chance of an apology. What on earth for? --PeterMarkSmith 04:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

So you two don't think that making false claims in Wikipedia and being found out is worth an apology? Perhaps you care less for the reputation of Wikipedia than others. --Pete 04:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Making false claims in wikipedia and then being found out? Absolute garbage! Who are you trying to kid? I think it is best to drop it here, but further comment on your talk page.Merbabu 11:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see why you were indefinitely blocked before! You're a laugh! --PeterMarkSmith 04:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As you yourself put it, "Sheesh - it's "just" wikipedia!". I cannot share your contempt of Wikipedia's editing standards. --Pete 05:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok let's move on.... --PeterMarkSmith 05:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time to talk about you apologising for your personal attacks directed at me. --Pete 05:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah - I see - you're correct that I got it wrong that you were banned previously indefinitely - sorry - I apologise that I did not verify this fact - it was in fact a ONE YEAR ban [4]. --PeterMarkSmith 05:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Email from Inverell Forum confirms PH Pull Out

I need some help here. I have an email from Inverell organiser advising that PH has pulled out.. What this means is she DECIDED to attend - (as I had suspected) and pulled out... Is it wiki-ok to quote such things? If so - how do I do it (i.e. cite a private correspondence?). --PeterMarkSmith 05:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You need a verifiable source. A private email can't be verified. I suggest that, if true, it means that PH decided to pull out when she found out that right wing nutters would be attending. Your previous line was that it was "her DECISION alone - to share the platform with notorious persons". I suggest that if you are making unverifiable edits to Wikipedia in the quest of some personal crusade, you go and find something else to do. --Pete 05:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would accept the email, absent any reason to doubt its veracity. It's not completely verified, but it seems verifiable. I guess you could email them yourself. Probably another public announcement will be made. Meanwhile, I've restored the cited information and if you want to add that she has declined, I won't object. I won't even object if you want to add that speculation about her reasons for withdrawing. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

How amusing. You can't use personal emails at all, and certainly not in a biography of a living person. The article on which you rely turns out to be wrong - PH won't be attending, according to the Inverell Forum's own website. Don't attempt to reinsert it. --Pete 07:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

We're not claiming she will attend. We are reporting that she said that she would. Can you show me where the website says that she will not be attending? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Peter is right, there's no way we can accept an email as a source in any article but especially not in a living person biography. The information needs to come from some verifiable source. Sarah 14:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Suppressed premise

It seems to me there are a number of suppressed premises people are making in order to make the article neutral, or worse, hiding Hanson's true premise. In the part where it says she complained that many parliamentarians had dual-citizenship, it needs to be stated something along the lines of "thus she felt that parliamentarians should only be Australian citizens." Otherwise, it makes it look less xenophobic than the comment really is. DanielRoseMQ 12:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

musicals

It probably should be updated to include Pauline's activities in musicals now...

That "news" has mostly been reported on tabloid television. It's merely an attempt to raise her public profile. DanielRoseMQ 12:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

bias statement - too supportive

"top 100 influencial australian of all time?" My ass, more like top 100 racist xenophobic redhead of all time.

Influential is quite different from "good", or anything positive. Michael ^talk 12:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Xenophobic perhaps, but please cite an instance where she has been "racist"? -- Librarianofages (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

POV Statement

In the "Political career" section it states:

"misinformed and uneducated. It quickly became evident that the latter explanation was correct."

I'm sorry but this statement is purely POV and I have decided to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Headmess (talk • contribs) 18:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This article has been edited by One Nation

It is probably reasonably common knowledge among many Wikipedians here that past and former officials of Pauline Hanson's One Nation party regularly drop by here to make edits to this article. It is my opinion that One Nation operatives are attempting to slant this article to depict the organisation and its former leader, Pauline Hanson, in a positive and glorious light. There have been hundreds of editors who have, over time, contributed to this article, and the Wikipedia rules would forbid the identification of which editors have a close association with the subject or a conflict of interest. However, I ask the editing community to be on the lookout for future edits which may be trying to paint an overly positive picture of the subject, or future edits which express an opinion of the subject which is wildly different to the way it is depicted in the mainstream press.Lester 21:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm just thankful that like a ball of string, the David Hicks article keeps him occupied and generally out of my way. Timeshift (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes Lester. There are indeed a group of people that do their damned best to make sure that Hanson is portrayed in the best possibe light. A few of them are borderline Hanson fanatics. Some others are those who don't like the racism that exists in our society being exposed. Exposing the darker side of Hanson exposes this. That's why they'll edit the page to make it as close to their view of her as possible. Another one to look at is the John Howard page. That's almost a joke. At one stage it almost looked like he was sitting on a cloud, playing a harp with a halo over his head. (Mister Real (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC))

External links section

In accordance with WP:EL, I’m recommending that the external links section be closely examined and culled. I’ve removed a poor quality opinion piece - the argument for its inclusion is to ‘balance’ other articles in the EL section. Wouldn’t it be easier to remove all offending links.

I have no problem with the sources (if deemed reliable) being used as references within the text, but our aim should be to create an article that covers all aspects and view points without having to have a sloppy list of other articles, to which we then chop and change for notions of ‘balance’. regards --Merbabu (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, we seem to share the same views on the matter, I was doing just that as you were writing it would seem, have moved the majority here to be incorporated into article. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

external links - to be incorporated into article

• An extract from the book Off the Rails: The Pauline Hanson trip by Margo Kingston

• Text of Pauline Hanson's maiden speech to the Australian House of Representatives
• Hanson to sue Abbott?
• Costello rejects claims Hanson sentence was a 'political fix'
• Tony Abbot's dirty Hanson Trick

The external links list is getting too long and unwieldy, so i've moved them here so they can be incorporated into article.. have left 2 there which are directly related. Remove from here once incorporated into article. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of racism

Since Hanson was the subject of many allegations of racism in the mainstream public media, it would be unencyclopedic to not include material on this topic. The desire to insert such material is not POV-pushing as has been suggested. The desire to exclude matters of public interest and on the public record, however, is POV. The principle of NPOV demands that the debate be covered in a factual and neutral way, so that the content of articles presents a range of views, not the exclusion of valid information from the public record. Allegations of racism were a significant aspect of the public response to Hanson, that is undeniable. Eyedubya (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with including her in "Category: Racism in Australia" for the same reasons I outlined at Talk:John Howard (basically because it's a misuse of categories as described at Wikipedia:Categorization). I support discussion of allegations of racism (for the reasons Eyedubya gives), but I think it fits better into discussion on her early political career (her maiden speech etc) than into a separate section tacked on at the end. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that dealing with allegations of racism were such a significant aspect of Hanson's political career, why do you think it should be subsumed within a broader topic? Eyedubya (talk) 04:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Because adding on a very special separate section solely to gather the issue of racism smacks of barrow pushing and axe grinding. Indeed, that's how many people will see it. We may as well say "hey, wikipedia didn't say she's racist, but we hope you will think she is after our section highlighting the issues of racism". If, as Peter suggests, it's worked into the article (assuming the info itself is appropriate) then readers can decide themselves rather than having the big red Racism flag. --Merbabu (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also note that in your new section that you haven't put in any of the instances over the years where she has denied being a racist. Your first post above mentions a "range of views". Perhaps you haven't got that far yet, but if this unfortunate section is to remain, one would expect the argument that she isn't a racist to get equal billing here - so far the material is very slanted to one POV. Which gets to my next point: No POV is better than neutral point of view - the latter seems to bring up this odd concept of trying to balance/weigh all the different views together as if they were on a set of scales. The new content really seems to be POV commentary rather than facts, and although presented in neutral language, the content itself is not neutral and thus requires "balancing" POV's. Why not just remove the POV (both sides) altogether? Facts, dates, statements, only. no commentary. Much easier/credible.--Merbabu (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this section is being worked on to much of what you say. However, the logic of your suggestion to stick to the 'facts' is not as simple as it seems. To remove all bias and commentary, the only material which could be included would be transcripts of Hanson's speeches and media interviews. But that would take up a lot of space, far more than is warranted. Furthermore, its not her words alone that are notable etc, since as was pointed out by none other than John Howard, they reflect the views of many people in Australia. Thus, the reasons why her words were notable needs to be stated - and this means including another set of 'facts' - the opinions of prominent media and other commentators, such as politicians and academics. The arguments of some of these people can be complex and require summary statements rather than citing entire articles and books so that WP readers can make up their own minds. You may have noted that I have already started to include opinions from a range of views, such as those of Keith Suter. However, the mere assertion by Hanson that she is not a racist, or that the things she has said are not racist are not in themselves arguments that invalidate the claims that she is. The interview transcript with Denton makes it clear that her understanding of the implications of her own words was often limited and thus perhaps not able to grasp what racism actually might be. It is this aspect of Hanson that makes her such a fascinating phenomenon, because it is this lack of awareness about the implications of such ordinary, everyday views that do indeed reflect the views of many people in many places about people who are different from themselves. Hannah Arendt coined a phrase for this kind of thing - 'the Banality of Evil'. Eyedubya (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Hanson's denial of being a racist (whether good faith denials or not) does not "invalidate" the charge of racism - in just the same way that the allegations of racism don't make her a racist. My point is that from a "balance" (there's that dodgy word again) and neutrality aspect, we must include them. Otherwise, you'd essentially be arguing, she is a racist and thus her denials are irrelevant - the fact that she denied it over and over (with explanation - dodgy or otherwise) is highly relevant and required by npov. You yourself raised "range of views". We should not be validating or invalidating any claims (as I suspect the later part of you post is trying to do), rather we should just list the notable ones. We are not trying to decipher, interpret or validate anything here.--Merbabu (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we seem to be singing from the same songsheet on this one, 'cos that's exactly what I'm trying to do. If you have any good references for Hanson's denials other than that already included, be my guest (many hands make light work). Cheers, Eyedubya (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you seem very capable of pulling up old references on this topic (better than me) - thus, in the interests of having your contributions judged npov, you might try your hand at finding them. I wouldn't know where to look, whereas you seem to have some clue. --Merbabu (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I note that notable interventions on the topic from Prime Ministers are not worthy in your view, so perhaps someone with your superior and more refined judgement needs to do the heavy lifting here! Eyedubya (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't notable. Of course it's notable. I said it was beside the point. I meant that it was beside that particular point, and have no problem with it being mentioned as a separate point (which it already is). --Merbabu (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Enough Rope interview

To Merbabu: If you follow the link, you can copy paste those sections of the transcript that do what has been described in the 'Allegations of racism' sub-section, if you think they warrant that much space. However, I'd have thought that the whole point of a web-based encyclopedia is that readers can follow links if they want that much detail. Eyedubya (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

External links etc can indeed be very useful. But it doesn't excuse unclear content in the main page - all wikipedia content must be able to stand on its own. It is unclear. A a separate but related point is that the current (unclear) section is also too long. It needs to be paraphrased in such a manner that is clear. "Hanson was unaware of the racist outcomes of her views" - what does that mean? --Merbabu (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhap's it'd be best if you read the interview transcript so that you can see what I'm referring to. It went like this: Denton: define racism. Hanson: Defines racism, says she's never said things that match her definition. Denton: here's an example of what your supporters are saying (a remark that sounds pretty much like the things Hanson has actually said); Hanson: Says she's not aware that such things had been said. NOTE: logically, she should have said: the comments are not racist, OR attempted to argue some difference between what she's said and this kind of comment. but she didn't. At first she is lost for words, then she says she's unaware. Clearly, her stated definition of racism is not something she is able to defend when presented with statements that are clearly racist, and only slightly different from her own statements in her maiden speech. But I suggest you read the transcript yourself if you find my version unconvincing. However, the show's not called 'Enough rope' for nothing ... ! Eyedubya (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion that I need to read he transcript illustrates my point perfectly - ie, that the point/punchline is not clear (indecipherable almost) and that the transcript would have to be read to understand. Further, your last post suggestions you are trying to make your own point out of it all. There should be nothing in the article that is not directly attributable to someone else without a skerrick of commentary/editorialisation. I will look at it in the next few days and if it hasn't changed I will copy edit, clarify or remove as appropriate. The whole Denton section remains dodgy. --Merbabu (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• To save you some time, here's the relevant section from the transcript:

ANDREW DENTON: [...] In many people's eyes you were a racist. In your eyes, what's a racist?

PAULINE HANSON: Let's define the word, what 'racist' is - "A person who believes that their race to be superior to another's." I've never advocated that. And I challenge anyone to tell me one thing that I've said that is racist. Criticism is not racism. Accountability is not racism. And that's what I've tried to say over the years.

ANDREW DENTON: Many people took your comments to mean other things. In that first six months between being elected member for Oxley and your maiden speech, over that time you said, amongst other things, we're in danger of being swamped by Asians, that we should cease all immigrations, that Aborigines were not more disadvantaged than white people, and that you would represent those in your electorate except Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. Now, I'm going to show you something from a now-defunct program on Channel Seven called 'Witness'. This is a young Asian girl reading a letter she got as a direct result of people who were taking what you were saying and expressing their attitude to her.

WOMAN: "You are nothing but an ungrateful, treacherous, yellow slanty-eyed little Vietnamese whore. You have... We have had enough of your lot with their drug peddling and crime. So piss off now."

PAULINE HANSON: Mmm.

ANDREW DENTON: Were you aware of the impact of what you were saying, whatever you meant, was having on many people's lives?

PAULINE HANSON: No, Andrew. That's the first time I've actually seen that. Now, you made a comment there about, um...oh, that I wouldn't represent the Aboriginal people. After I was elected to Parliament I did an interview with 'The Australian' over the phone. And the headlines came out saying that I wouldn't represent the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I was taken before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity and for 18 months this went on, toing-and-froing over this comment. At the end of 1998, I think it was, Sir Ronald Wilson came down with the finding that what I said was not racist at all. They had the full tape of the conversation that I had with the journalist. They actually took it completely out of context. So he actually found that it was not any racist comments, that I never said that I wouldn't represent the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

ANDREW DENTON: Despite what you're saying about not appearing racist or not having a racist platform, your fellow travellers made it very hard for you to be disassociated from that. [end quote]

• My rendering of this is an attempt to be faithful to Hanson's own words. I've left some of the other material in there to illustrate how much time and energy she had for talking to journos and worrying about whether she'd been quoted out of context, yet, she wasn't once aware of the effects of the rhetoric she was using. Interesting! Eyedubya (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable, verifiable sources?

A number of the references in this article are from a site calling itself [Australian News Commentary: Independent commentary to counter the left-leaning, politically correct bigotry of a majority of mainstream journalists. http://australian-news.net/index.html]. This site appears to be an extreme POV site that has none of the clear legitimacy required of sources in Wikipedia articles. Material in the article sourced from this site is thus of dubious merit and likely to be removed by conscientious editors. Eyedubya (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Eugh. After one minute browsing that site I totally agree. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Independent commentary to counter the left" (or right) is automatically not independent. It is not a WP:RS. Timeshift (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Having said that, its only use I can find is a direct quote from David Flint. I think that site is OK for that purpose. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Flint quote is from the West Australian. Better to go to the source don't you think? Otherwise WP will be seen to be promoting unsavoury and unreliable sources. Eyedubya (talk) 05:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if the quote is accurate, I've decided the source is so horriblly POV we shouldn't use it. In any case, the quote doesn't really match the claim, that Hanson herself claims to be misrepresented, so I've requested a cite for that. (The Enough Rope interview might be suitable). Peter Ballard (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Early life

What does the reference to her leaving school at fifteen "after barely passing" mean? Millbanks (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Alledged Nude pix

The photographer isn't sure of the subject, Ms Hanson denies she ever saw the man, let alone posed nude for him.[5] I think this says more about gullible newspapermen and opportunistic drug-addled photographers than Hanson. Unless we get some positive confirmation, these have to go under WP:BLP. --Pete (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Whether they're genuine or not, it's clearly a news story. The media isn't avoiding it due to BLP, so why should we? I've no objection to waiting a few weeks though. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

p.s. Timeshift, I thought 3 references to the same news organisation was overkill. They all inter-link on the news.com.au website anyway. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It is news - and I note that Ms Hanson is suing the news outlets - but where is the biographical significance? This is an encyclopaedia, not tomorrow's fish and chip wrapper. --Pete (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Pete has a direct WP:COI issue here, considering his past affiliations. But I can't say i'm surprised that if anyone would remove it, Pete would. In regards to if it's true, I note with interest the responses from Pauline's PR man... Timeshift (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the whole reason I came out of retirement for this one is that I came here looking for an old photo of Pauline. I saw one once, and IIRC she had quite a head of long wavy hair. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There you go. Timeshift (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict x 3) I don’t see this as a blp issue as long as it’s well-referenced and only states that they are purported to be photos of Pauline – until verified. It is however, just more recentish laundry list stuff – just because it’s a newspaper headline (and a Sunday one at that), doesn’t make it notable encyclopaedic material. This latest little beat up, Obama/Howard and “what’s the G20” should all go into the same garbage bin (and they all will one day - it's just that sooner would be nicer than later). --Merbabu (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's BLP for the same reason Pauline Hanson is suing the media outlets. We don't need to go into it any further than that. Do we have an impeccable source that the photographs are of her? No, because the photographer is very hazy in his recollection and what details he gives out are refuted by Hanson and her sister. That's not the sort of stuff that will stand up in court.

Timeshift, I know we are all amateurs here, but try to be professional. I came looking at this to see how Wikipedia was handling the matter and the answer was not very professionally at all. I quote: Nude photos, allegedly of Hansen 30 years ago, were published in March 2009. Hanson denied it was her.[6] --Pete (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"try to be professional". Ha ha - there's some fuel for the fire. A bait if there ever was one. --Merbabu (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't meant as such. A gentle reminder to keep things cool and focussed on the task. --Pete (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And all I did was mention WP:COI considering your past affiliations. Timeshift (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

to skyring, i thought you meant that as a comment on main page editing, rather than a comment in advance of talk page behaviour. sorry. --Merbabu (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been re-added and with good wording. Well done Format. Timeshift (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't applaud work where the editor can't even spell the name of the subject of a biographical article. I've pulled this out on the basis that it's too much space given to a minor incident. Her Dancing with the Stars thing went on for months and gave her huge coverage, but we only have a sentence. Why should we give this thing more space? Incidentally, I'm no longer against a mention per se, given that she's involved herself and is likely to win substantial damages - that's encyclopaedic, so long as we focus on Ms Hanson, rather than the photographs or actions of third parties. My objection lay in us following the line of the now totally blown media outlets, and I am disappointed to see the same sort of gullible behaviour exhibited here. --Pete (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that despite your WP:COI/previous affiliations, you think you WP:OWN the article, by continuing to edit war with multiple editors despite your view being in the minority. Timeshift (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you address the points raised by myself and others, please. It's now clear that the photographs aren't of Hanson, and our following the original gullible line of the newspapers, even with weasel words like "alleged" is neither of a professional standard nor encyclopaedic. Tread carefully on BLP ground, please. --Pete (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've raised this matter on the BLP Noticeboard. I especially highlight the haste with which Timeshift acted to provide links in our article to material which turned out to be erroneous and the subject for litigation by the subject of the article. His continued attempts to defend this, even going so far as to edit war over their inclusion, is deplorable. --Pete (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Reinstated. None of the references actually point to the pics and say they are of Hanson. One shows a cropped face pic of the woman purported to be Hanson, and quotes an expert saying it is not her. Format (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Pete will remove it as he thinks he WP:OWNs the article, despite his WP:COI. Timeshift (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

We all have articles on our watchlist, and this one is a prime target for bigots. None of the article's copy is mine - I just tidy up a bit from time to time.

• Ms Hanson is suing the media outlets. She cannot possibly lose the case, given that the outlets have admitted that they were duped.
• Providing links in a biographical article to sources that say explicitly that the photographs are of the subject when they are not is just plain wrong. Even if you have to click twice to get there, we are still setting readers off on the path.
• The whole incident is not encyclopaedic. It is a news snippet, and it is hard to see how giving any space at all to it can be justified when other aspects of her political career are skipped over or briefly hinted at.
• I know it's in all the newspaper feeds, and it's fresh in everyone else's mind, but where should the weight in this article lie - on her political career and controversy, or three paragraphs on photographs that weren't even of her?

I've indicated above that I wouldn't oppose a brief and appropriate mention, but I'm beginning to think that some editors get all in a tizzy when the words "nude" and "Pauline Hanson" and "nineteen year old" are linked. Just calm down, ok? --Pete (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article, there's a reference in the context of her most recent electoral loss. That article states the case, provides no ongoing links, and gives a balanced view. It's instructive to look at the comments by readers. Incidentally, I don't share Ms Hanson's view that the photographs were to blame for her loss. She's swung and missed in a stream of elections since 1998. Her electoral support was never a majority, and the only way to get elected was to get a preference flow from one of the major parties coming third. If anything, I think the photographs built a sympathy vote. --Pete (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO the episode needs to be in the article. The events are pretty clear now, and there can't possibly be any BLP violation in telling what happened. Further material:

• Sex Party Finds Possible Source of Hanson Lookalike Photos
• Hanson look-alike 'in sex mag 27 years ago'
• Discussion thread with sample image from the magazine mentioned above with the look-alike and Long Dong Silver. (Warning: NSFW!)

Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If there's no BLP problem, then why is Ms Hanson suing and the media outlets apologising? There's a BLP issue, and there's a weight issue. This is news, not biography. Besides, as noted above, we've got a non-controversial link in connection with the Queensland campaign. I think a few appropriate words are justified, but we don't need to make a three course meal of it. --Pete (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hanson is suing because some media outlets, notably News Limited papers, defamed her. Telling the truth (with sources), like Media Watch did, will not raise WP:BLP issues. Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could read the previous discussion, instead of rehashing stuff that's in general agreement? I've added a few words to the Queensland election para. If you want to write a news story, by all means write it up in Wikinews with everybody's blessing. --Pete (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Link

Please remove the link to my book "Inside One Nation" from this page. I don't want my book to be associated with this pathetic attempt to record the One Nation history.

Thank you

Scott Balson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.161.180 (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Scott! Perhaps you'd like to improve this "pathetic history"? We're always looking for fresh editors. --Pete (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Probably the biggest problem with this article (like many other articles of its kind) is actually a lack of people reviewing it, so that you end up with situations where clearly out of whack stuff is there for years while other stuff is missing. Orderinchaos 06:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I just removed the link to the book's site. Not because of the above request to do so, but because I cannot see how the link improves the encyclopedia in accordance with WP:EL. I concur with Pete and Orderinchaos' sentiment for more active editors. --Merbabu (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing the sources, I think the book was used as a reference for some of the childhood stuff. --Pete (talk) 09:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If it is a reliable source and used in the article, that would of course be fine if listed as a (preferably in-line cite) reference. But not as it was in the external link to the book's website where it was not much more than linkspam.--Merbabu (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the link. I will not participate here. I have participated in the past on this particular page only to find that anonymous "reviewers" who know nothing about One Nation, what drove it, its inner workings or why it really collapsed have "revised and deleted" these comments at a later stage. I wish you well but like much of what is on Wikipedia it has no basis in fact.

Thank you

Scott Balson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.8.77 (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Magazine articles

Hanson featured in a two page article in New Africa of April 2009 on page 68.

Tabletop (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Er..."worked in a variety of unskilled clerical and service job"? Where is the reference for this? Not to mention the derogatory "unskilled" comment is NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.159.111.98 (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Good points. I'd be inclined to take out 'unskilled' - at least because there might be no such thing as an 'unskilled clerical' job. But the whole paragraph needs filling out. --Wikiain 23:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiain (talk • contribs)

Another Addition

Should there be some metion here about media reports stating Hanson refuses to sell her home to any muslim, as she feels they do not fit into our culture? A small point but a current one, as of 28/04/10

Remove my book as a reference from this crap

Many of the comments on this page on Pauline Hanson and One Nation are largely rubbish and ill-informed. Please remove any references to my book "Inside One Nation" from Wikipedia forthwith. Thanks Scott Balson (author Inside One Nation) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.219.130 (talk) 08:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You can always fix the article up, yourself, Scott, so long as you stick within WP guidelines. The article tends to attract edits from people with political agendas. --Pete (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Pete, my point exactly. Now please remove any reference to my book - I have a life and have no interest in playing tag with a bunch of kids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.219.130 (talk) 09:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear - your book is not being used as a reference, but as a suggestion for further reading. The references are the section above. Frickeg (talk) 09:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Please show me if I'm wrong, but from memory, as long as a reference is used within WP guidelines an policies, then I don't believe anyone can demand a reference be removed - even if it is by the author.

As for the actual usage I note that in one instance it is used as a citation, and in one case, it is listed in the "Further Reading" section. Unless it can be shown that it is incorrectly used in the citation, then I don't think there is a case for removal. As for the Further Reading section, personally I am wary of them such sections (it's like the wikipedia endorsed list) but I don't see why we should remove one book and not the others. --Merbabu (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. Must have missed the citation. I too am not quite sure on this, but I've been through the policies and can't find anything relevant - I'm in agreement with Merbabu here. Frickeg (talk) 09:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The author of a book has no inherit right to demand people do not read it, or cite it. If the author can show that it is being improperly cited, by all means outline the objections. Ashmoo (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Spot on. If we're using a publicly available work as a source - and it's a good source from an insider, albeit a trifle one-eyed on certain points - then we should keep it. If the article is crap, then if should be fixed. Scott, most editors are good people, and if you can work as part of the team, with an eye to providing a useful resource, then you are welcome. --Pete (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.