Talk:Far-right politics in Australia

White Rose Society
Wondering if it's worth having a section about this group which works against the far-right? This is an interview with them and this is their website. Alternatively, they may be a good source of information? (I don't have time to read properly or investigate further just now). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, yeah I reckon they should have a section, maybe Andy Flemming too, the ABC and the Guardian use both as sources on the subject. Bacondrum (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Sidebar in progress
I'm currently working on creating a sidebar for every major ideological grouping of political beliefs in Australia (Liberalism, conservatism, socialism, far-right), which outlines current and historical organisations as well influential people and literature. These sidebars are used in American and Canadian politics pages, and it has been relatively overlooked in Australia. I've got a template in progress at User:Catiline52/Template:Far-right politics in Australia, any feedback or contributions would be appreciated. Not sure if there's a more relevant page to talk about this on. Catiline52 (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Great, I don't know much about creating these things, but I think it's a good idea. Thanks. Bacondrum (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Pauline Hanson and One Nation
I think that PHON bares mentioning on this page, in context. Former PHON members have gone on to become prominent far-right figures, leaving PHON out altogether obfuscates the significant role that PHON has played in the rise of far-right parties and figures and the development of their respective ideologies. Bacondrum (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The thing is that they're former members. One Nation in itself is fairly mainstream, generally polling behind the Coalition, Labor and the Greens and occasionally topping the Greens in the newspoll. Not only has its electoral support risen in recent years to the point where it's no longer a fringe party but it's policies also seem to have changed, in large part due to Mark Latham joining. It should be mentioned to the extent that its current or former members including Hanson have had ties with the far right but to designate ON as a far right political party in of itself is a stretch. Populist would be a better word. There's a total of 12 mentions of One Nation and three of Hanson on the page, compared to seventeen for Anning who is more universally considered far right and has been more prominent in very recent political history since leaving PHON and subsequently denounced by Hanson and her party. trainsandtech (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It still bares mentioning that more than a couple of the most vocal figures in far-right politics started out as members of the party. Hanson and her party are clearly associated with the far right, at the very least. We describe them as "right to far-right" here as do numerous quality sources (this was what I found in a 20 second google search):


 * The Guardian describes PHON as a "far-right nationalist party" and simply "far right"
 * The Sydney Morning Herald describes her as "far-right"
 * The Financial review refers to her as "far-right"
 * Crikey calls PHON the "lunatic fringe of the far right"
 * Al Jazeera refers to PHON as "far-right"
 * As do interminable numbers of academic papers. That was a very quick search.
 * To describe PHON as mainstream is more than a stretch, it's simply not true. They've never actually polled anywhere near the Greens vote (And at 10-12% of the national vote the Greens are still a minor party). But that's besides the point, it can be easily demonstrated looking at quality sources that PHON and the far-right are at the very least associated with each other, and many on the far right have been members of PHON. It is noteworthy. Bacondrum (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There are many more sources that call her and PHON right-wing or some other label that would imply they're less than far-right. The issue is directly implying the PHON or PH as an individual are far right, as opposed to being merely associated/linked with far-right individuals or groups. You recently removed a disclaimer that PH is not "explicitly" far right from the article's list of far right figures, which, if she is to be mentioned there, should be stated for the purpose of objectivity. trainsandtech (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As it currently stands the article merely mentions factual and verifiable connections to far right figures, it doesn't directly imply that PHON are far right. I've started a discussion below about possibly adding a section on PHON which would be implying that they are far-right, but we don't do so in this article as it is. Bacondrum (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * One Nation isn’t really ‘far-right’. Pauline Hanson isn’t particularly racist or homophobic. One Nation actually has some Asian members and at least 2 Asian candidates, an Indian candidate and a Muslim candidate. It is right-wing/centre-right, yes, but I wouldn’t say far-right. Similar case with Bob Katter. (60.229.148.166 (talk)) 12:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Academic: News: That's a pretty firm consensus in reliable sources. Bacondrum (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources that describe Pauline Hanson's one nation as far-right:
 * Anti-Immigrant Sentiment, Policy Preferences and Populist Party Voting in AustraliaBritish Journal of Political Science, pages 341-358 https://www.jstor.org/stable/4092233
 * One Nation and the Australian far right, Patterns of Prejudice, volume 35, issue 3, pages 24-40
 * The Oxford Handbook of the Radical Right, chapter: The Radical Right in Australia
 * The politics of race and immigration in Australia, Ethnic and Racial Studies, volume 25, issue 2, pages:823–844
 * https://theconversation.com/pauline-hanson-built-a-political-career-on-white-victimhood-and-brought-far-right-rhetoric-to-the-mainstream-134661
 * https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/03/australia-nation-offered-change-voting-system-cash-190327170846167.html
 * https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/political-forces-unite-to-reject-far-right-and-deny-one-nation-preferences-
 * https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/mar/19/scott-morrison-rules-out-one-nation-preference-deal-after-christchurch-attack
 * https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/01/the-coalition-is-normalising-the-far-right-with-its-one-nation-and-palmer-deals
 * https://www.smh.com.au/federal-election-2019/one-nation-splits-preferences-in-key-wa-and-queensland-seats-20190506-p51kmo.html
 * https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/far-right-social-media-bolster-coalition-vote-20190521-p51pps
 * https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/the-media-is-in-denial-about-the-surge-of-the-far-right/ar-AABF24h

RFC - Should PHON and Hanson be included?
Hi, I personally think Hanson and PHON are firmly on the far-right and have played a major role in the rise of far-right politics in this country. There's heaps of reliable sources that claim as much (more than I actually expected) So I'm wondering what other editors think? So, Hanson and PHON...are they far-right? Bacondrum (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No. I have mentioned similar reasons above. (60.229.148.166 (talk)) 12:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, agree. Although obviously not in the same category as extremists and hate groups, they are nevertheless a far-right political party on the Australian spectrum, and frequently described as such. A glaring omission from an article with this title. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

New related article
Hey guys! I’d just like you to know I’ve made a related article, Draft:List of hate groups in Australia and New Zealand. If you guys wanted to help edit it, you can. I used this page for a lot of the info and this is the most work I’ve ever done on a Wikipedia article. It is being submitted for review and hopefully it will get to Wikipedia. (60.229.148.166 (talk)) 4:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: FYI, it appears that that draft was deleted by an admin, after qualifying for speedy deletion. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I nominated that for deletion a couple of times, it had become increasingly racist in tone and content. Bacondrum 22:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

A real new related article
I think I've got to the end of Far-right terrorism in Australia, and would like to see other editors review and work on both this article and the new one in the light of the differentiated titles. I felt that a new article was necessary in the light of recentish terrorist plots and convictions, ASIO listing its first far-right proscribed organisation, and with far-right groups and individuals occupying 40% of their caseload, etc., and also to differentiate "extremist, with potential for violence and/or terrorism"-type groups and individuals from relatively mainstream far-right politics (PHON), Love Australia or Leave and whatever other groups there are that don't qualify for the description. I'm sure I've missed things, although I must say learnt about quite a few groups and movements of which I knew little or nothing, hence went off on long sidetracks along the way... Also, wondering if it's worth separating the "21st-century groups" list into Current/Active and Defunct? A lot of them seem to have only had a short life and are now gone or morphed into other groups. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, great work - both here and on the new article - I agree far-right terrorism in Australia warrants a separate article, we seem to be a real hotbed for these types of ideologies. I think the shorter lived 21st century groups may be undue for inclusion in this article, I mean if they barely existed, perhaps we are giving them more air than is warranted? Bacondrum 22:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * the Far-right terrorism in Australia article really is very impressive, well done. Bacondrum 22:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . I see that you've been removing and shuffling a lot of info in this one - but please be mindful of two things: the work that has gone into finding and recording some of the content, and redirects which may point to now non-existent headings. Users may still want to look up whatever info is available on one of those minor groups, however insignificant in the scheme of things. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've just reverted those changes I made, not really sure how to approach this one. I don't want to give all those minor grouplets undue attention - especially seeing they all seem to love any attention they receive, negative or positive :D I certainly wouldn't want us to be unnecessarily inflating any of these groups egos. Bacondrum 23:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks . I understand your sentiments, but my focus is on the wider population of readers who may just have heard something about one of these groups and wants to look them up, and the alphabetical arrangement probably helps. Let's just give it a little while and see if other editors have other suggestions, and give it a bit more thought. Perhaps the current group descriptions and headers could remain, but sub-divided into the actual registered political parties (one alphabetical list) - which IMO should include PHON, but we can await other opinions - and other assorted groups in another? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I strongly agree with including PHON. Maybe break down to sub categories: registered parties, defunct groups, street gangs or some such sets of sub categories. PHON is certainly a glaring absence. For the record, I always have mixed feeling when creating or working on these articles, I'm really interested in the subject, but I would hate to promote these people of their ideas in any way. It's a minor conundrum, I feel like knowledge is important and helpful in the fight against such extremism, but I'd also hate to promulgate these ideas in anyway.<b style="color: blue;">Bacon</b><b style="color: Orange;">drum</b> 00:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I just had another quick skim, but think I need to go and do other things for a while and come back to it with fresh eyes. Me too, mixed feelings - but if the information provided is factual and leads to good sources, then we are informing people about the true nature of some of these groups, and if there is a minority who revel in any mention, so be it. If it's been covered in reputable secondary sources, then it deserves its place in Wikipedia. I know there is wp:undue, but it's hard to apply to named entities, when it seems warranted to include some info about them at least. I see a couple of problems with too many further subdivisions: the difficulty of categorising which groups fit which heading, and also that the headings get very small and the TOC even longer... Perhaps start with the "Political parties" / "Other groups" split and then review again? Anyway - as I say, I need a break from all this and will come back later. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Judeo-Christian
Why are the far-right groups referred to as generally espousing Judeo-Christian beliefs in the introduction when many (dare I say most) are anti-Semitic?

129.93.161.223 (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Following up on this, the term (when used incorrectly) can be harmful and there is an entire section of `Judeo-Christian`'s Wikipedia page dedicated to the controversial usage in politics and Christian supersessionism. Since this is not a quote and instead stated as a fact, it should not be present. If someone could point to (and prove) the Jewish values presented by far-right movements in Australia, this would be a non-issue.

2603:80A0:1640:1B6:9DA7:62D1:F960:DBD9 (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)