Talk:Fraser Anning/Archive 3

Date of birth
Reset his vandalized date of birth from 1991 to 1949. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8109:b40:2258:e0f2:4fa3:ff2:b44b (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

's anti-consensus edits
I hesitate to make this about one editor in particular but it's come to that point. I don't disagree with all of their edits but their actions are consistently being reverted by numerous editors and it's clear that they do not have the support of consensus on the talk page for their vision of how they want the article to be written. Now they have decided to take their disagreements with other editors on their user talk pages, including mine, but this issue should clearly be contained to this talk page. They have broken WP:3RR more than once now and this disruptive behaviour is not helping anybody, certainly not the readers of this article. There are real concerns that some editors, particularly new and IP editors, are making non-neutral claims about Anning, but seeking to remove all content about Anning that is controversial will absolutely not help. This pattern of applying for the page to be protected to administrator-only after they have restored the article to their own preferred version is also unhelpful and deeply concerning. Pinging involved editors, , , and the administrator who protected the article and inadvertently cemented StAnselm's edits. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Disappointing that even this relatively neutral description of "cultural Marxism" was reverted without adequate reasoning, considering that the word "canard" does not imply someone is an antisemite (As we debated earlier which sparked this whole controversy) and it only means that something is unfounded, without any legitimate evidence, or misleading, per the definition according to the Oxford English Dictionary:

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

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


 * I’m not wishing to get into lengthy exchanges, such as the astonishingly long and involved argy-bargy about whether or not it was acceptable to wikilink the term cultural Marxism. Neither am I supporting adding anything further to wikilinking that term. I was certain that a consensus had been agreed to, that merely wikilinking it would be sufficient and we could all by way of compromise agree to that.
 * Please understand that going overboard with detail about why someone might think that something in a speech of Anning’s or some social media output of his is bad is not the way to go. We just state what is, dispassionately, and in terms that are neither colloquial nor obscure (eg. canard - meaningless to 99% of the population.)
 * All that having been said, it looks as if it could be argued that  has been bending over backwards to eliminate any material which a supporter of Anning would consider incorrect or perhaps even embarrassing, to the extent over time that some might consider WP:OWN to have been violated.  For example, I don’t think it is acceptable just to revert an edit which adds additional material because a non-colloquial term or two has been used on it, and then say that it can go back in if that term has been altered.  Surely, Wikipedia is a collaborative project?  We are meant to co-operate with one another, not get into ridiculous edit wars, as if we and no-one else on the page knows the correct way to go about editing.  It is, therefore, far, far more useful to just alter those terms and smile and get on with other things.  Peace.   Boscaswell   talk  05:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * addendum I gotta say that this edit being the very same that St Anselm pinged you about on your talk page, is pretty dire, and simply not worth defending.  Best to have let it be in this case?  I actually had no idea why canard meant, so I don’t think there can’t be very many who do.  Why argue for the inclusion of something which next to no readers of Wikipedia will understand?  Peace.  Boscaswell   talk  05:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see how exactly is the word "canard" obscure, Anselm, considering it's readily being used to describe common fallacies and myths utilized by political extremists and is a synonym for the word myth, and is in no way so unknown (Like many latin phrases or Old and Middle English as an example) that only an erudite expert on the topic could understand it, especially with the added adjective "unfounded", which implies something is not backed by evidence and is most likely an falsehood, so even if one may not know full details about the word "canard", then he/she will infer from unfounded and the following sources that it must mean a allegation, a myth, or simply something not backed by facts. The "99% sees it as meaningless" figure is also little more than original research, which, if not properly peer-reviewed, reproduced, and proven with complementing material, is just as good as a old wives tale if we apply the scientific method. Alternatively, if "canard" is indeed too complicated for a layman to fully understand, I have no problem replacing it with either "unfounded allegation", "unfounded talking point", "unfounded myth", or "unfounded theory". Adrian Fey (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with "canard" being included in the article. What's happened here is that StAnselm has removed not only the wikilinking of cultural Marxism but the phrase entirely, and then went to get the page protected on the basis that there was edit warring on the article, even though they were the only editor arguing for and reverting to what they wanted the page to be.
 * If we all agree that cultural Marxism should be mentioned and wikilinked, then why isn't it there? If we do agree on that then that should be placed into the article immediately, and then we can discuss what more to include, if anything. It's pretty clear that StAnselm is the only editor who has argued against describing cultural Marxism. An example of their bad faith which seems to be ignored is them supporting a "compromise" that includes cultural Marxism being wikilinked, and then afterwards citing a guideline and insisting it shouldn't be wikilinked. All of the disputes on the talk page have been one person against all of the other participants, which is absolutely ridiculous. It's possible for there to be content in the article which StAnselm or any single particular editor doesn't think should be there. Consensus does not require unanimity, but that is effectively what is being forced here. I find it highly disruptive when they make their three reverts a day and then on that basis get the page admin protected for edit warring. I sincerely believe this editor needs to reflect on whether they should be editing this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * maybe there’s a problem with the cache on my trusty iphone, but if not, cultural Marxism is still in the article, wikilinked.
 * I think that - broadly-speaking - we are in alignment. Which is why I pinged the admin who froze the article and drew his attention to what I thought perhaps StAnselm was doing. I hope that he’ll consider removing the total edit protection sooner than it’s automatic expiry date of 30 April.
 * it was me who wrote (above) about 99% not understanding the term ‘canard’. Be careful before describing cultural Marxism in the article as ‘meaningless’, or any similar word.  It needs to be generally understood that it is before describing it as such in a Wikipedia article, even though you may come up with lots of refs which say that it is.  In doing so you’d be in danger of adding opinion to the words Anning spoke.  So it’s best left alone and unexplained,  other than via the wikilink, IMO.  There are far bigger fish to fry, aren’t there?  Peace.   Boscaswell   talk  08:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to cultural Marxism being mentioned in the lead section, as it originally was. There was never any consensus or even proposal to move it to another section. There should certainly be a brief description of cultural Marxism, since this is not something widely known and we don't want to give the impression that he is criticising some aspect of actually existing Marxism. Something like "cultural Marxism, a far-right conspiracy theory". Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

- @StAnselm: why are you not participating in the above discussion, at all? I am considering just unprotecting the article and topic-banning you from it for a while. El_C 13:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Two reasons, mainly: (a) I was away from my computer all day yesterday (as you can see from my contributions); (b) per Defend each other I was hoping others would speak up showing how ridiculous User:Onetwothreeip's comments were (which User:Boscaswell did to some degree.) So here are my thoughts:


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


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


 * I don't see how it's true that you were away from your computer but that you wanted others to defend you. This isn't about one edit of yours, it's a pattern of behaviour on this article and its talk page, as I've outlined. I don't see anything to indicate Boscaswell calling my comments ridiculous, they gave their valid input.
 * When it comes to what was "agreed", I think you're wilfully obfuscating this. You're arguing that because at that time when you were challenging "cultural Marxism" being wikilinked, they somehow didn't support having a description there when they were supporting the wikilink being restored. I think you're admitting now that you misunderstood what consensus had decided, and hadn't decided.
 * What's obvious here is that to you, "consensus position" has to mean something that you agree with, or it's not the consensus position. You've attempted to make it seem like there was some deal where you would accept an internal link to cultural Marxism (you personally think it shouldn't be wikilinked) and that everyone else would accept not to make any edits to further clarify cultural Marxism. I'm all for accomodating dissenting views in talk page discussions but this is absurd, you're trying to put something in the article that you don't even want to be there in order to stop what everyone else wants to be there.
 * Earlier you linked something to a comment by Adrian Fey that you said supported your "no-description" view, but what you linked to explicitly said they agreed to my proposed description. Now you're claiming that Abecedare advised you to "revert it again" but I clicked on that link and it says it would be best to report such violations to me, El_C or at WP:ANI instead of repeatedly reverting them). This part is also inexplicable, "this is clearly going against the talk page consensus (since it's a BLP violation)". I don't want BLP violations on this article, but you're removing a lot more when you say you're removing something that violates BLP. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (1) Boscaswell called your edit "pretty dire". (2) Let's go over this one more time: there is no consensus to include a description of cultural Marxism. Without a reference explicitly linkiing it to Anning, it's a BLP violation. (3) The wikilink issue is irrelevant, but just to be clear: I personally would prefer it not wikilinked, but was happy to accept the wikilink for the sake of compromise. (4) No, I did not say Abecedare advised me to revert again: he advised me not to edit war, which is why I asked for page protection. And that was because it seemed to me you were going to keep on re-inserting the anti-consensus BLP violations. StAnselm (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * They are referring to an edit that I reverted to, not my own edit. I agree with Boscaswell, and it wouldn't have taken much to remove the dire parts. It's pretty simple, just remove the BLP violations, don't use it as an opportunity to remove whatever you want from the article without any possible challenge simply because you happen to be removing BLP violations. The IP that inserted some dire material added 690 bytes including a reference, and most of it just had to be fixed with one part needing to be removed. You then removed 3232 bytes from the page. When I reverted your revert I was in the process of removing the "dire" edits that the IP added to the article but you quickly reverted my revert and got the page protected.
 * Go ahead and look at the discussion. Several people agreed not only to include a brief description of cultural Marxism after it's mentioned, but in particular the version I suggested. You would certainly be entitled, and I would have encouraged you, to give input on what that brief description should be, such as making sure we don't imply anything about Anning that is untrue which is a concern of both of us, but clearly you have to accept that the consensus isn't with you on whether or not there should be a wikilink or a description. As I quoted, Abecedare didn't advise you to get the page protected either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (1) OK, you need to change the way you edit here. If you are going to clean up an article, please don't start by restoring BLP violations! As I said, I am happy to include a neutrally-phrased report of the recent tweet, but it should be discussed on the talk page first. You should have left it out and we could have talked about it like civilised editors. (2) I know some people agreed with you about including a description of CM but Abecedare told you repeatedly that it would be a BLP violation, so of course the consensus was to exclude it. (3) User:Boscaswell, perhaps you could clarify which edit you were describing as "dire"? StAnselm (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How else would I restore the 2500 bytes that you removed that weren't from the "dire" editor? All I or anybody would have to do is press undo on that person's contributions, but their edits would be very easy to remove manually as well. Again you're using someone's BLP violation so that when someone reverts your 3200 byte removal, they would be inadvertently restoring something that shouldn't be on the page. All that takes is then removing the violating addition from the page, which was simply that they had included the article in a category of neo-nazis. What you've done here is again blatantly disruptive and I don't think people are fooled by it.
 * I don't think you get what the word consensus means. Quite clearly when people were agreeing with your proposal to wikilink cultural Marxism (even though you don't want it), they were also agreeing with me that it should be described in some way. Again to clarify, the description should not describe Anning personally, it should only describe what he was referring to. For example if I say that I'm walking on Collins Street, we could report that "Onetwothreeip said he was walking on Collins Street, a busy road in Melbourne's CBD". This is clearly not something that would be defamatory to me. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oneteothreeip, this is getting to be a pretty bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You have been told repeatedly that we cannot include any description of CM without a reliable source connecting it to Anning. This was tested at BLPN as well. And yet you continue to push for its inclusion. StAnselm (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant as to whether there is a consensus for it, which there is. There is no particular description that it has to be, just something like my Collins Street example. It's not as if we would need a source to say that I personally believe Collins Street is a busy street in order to describe it as such. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) Once again, I don't think you understand how consensus works. Since it assesses arguments, there can never be a consensus to include a BLP violation, no matter how many people agree. StAnselm (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

PROPOSAL

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

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

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

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

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


 * This should clearly be another section. Per Abecedare, I agree that we should not synthesise criticism of the subject based on some understanding of cultural Marxism. This does not mean that cultural Marxism cannot be described in any way to clarify what the term means when we use it. I support the wikilink moving to the the Frankfurt School section.
 * I certainly don't support the condition that something never be discussed again, that's not something that ever should be agreed to, and that is the personal choice of editors whether they wish to bring something up, and the choice of the rest of the participants for how they want to engage that if they want to at all.
 * As for "conspiracy", it should be used to the extent that reliable sources on the topic use it. We don't have to use that word on this article when we describe cultural Marxism if people believe it is unduly critical of Anning's use of the phrase. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree with Boscaswell's proposal. StAnselm (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Boscaswell's proposal, never supported anything else Bacondrum (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Onetwothreeip I proposed no further changes unless they will satisfy what Abecedare said.  And you've just said that you agree with what Abecedare said, so I don't understand why you have a problem with my proposal.  Therefore, with this clarification, can you agree now?  I'm trying to avoid the likelihood of further edit wars, which will undoubtedly break out if further non-NPOV material is edited in.
 * It's very important not to describe CM outside of what Abecedare says. StAnselm has a point here.
 * The proposal I've made is a compromise, as CM is already described with what many would describe as a non-NPOV in the Frankfurt School article. This is a BLP.  Loathe him (Anning) or love him or anything in between, when we sign up we agree to follow guidelines.  I hope you can agree now, Onetwothreeip.  Peace.   Boscaswell   talk  23:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I do agree with the minor change you proposed. I also support providing a brief and neutral description of the phrase that Anning used. Your proposal does not have to be formalised and I anticipate no opposition to it, so we can make the change on the article as possible. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we've reached a resolution, but I'm worried by the words "I also support providing a brief and neutral description of the phrase". Onetwothreeip, please do not add such a description to the article. StAnselm (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Now that the protection is over, I will be restoring the edits and then will quickly remove the BLP violating content added by the IP address, such as Anning being a neo-nazi. I appeal to everyone to remove BLP violation edits manually instead of reverting edits which include non-violation edits as well. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But why did you restore the edit listing Cultural Marxism sources? That edit was challenged and should not be restored without consensus. As I see it, it's irrelevant to this article. StAnselm (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with removing those three sources about cultural Marxism. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. StAnselm (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Reject, in order to not accidentally legitimize what Anning said (Not describing cultural marxism for what it is is implicitly normalizing the term and "acknowledging" said theory is "real") and give the impression that he was right and there is nothing incorrect or wrong about "cultural marxism". Per the principle of denying recognition to far-right screeds, and since Abecedare will for some mysterious reason not accept anything unless it explicitly mentions Anning (Who on earth said that he "owns" the term?) and is from Australia, I propose just blanking the entire paragraph and getting it over with, since this week-long discussion has not changed anything in a meaningful fashion and any other proposal is rejected on the spot. In the end, this is likely the best solution, just how Anselm wants it, since the source he is looking after doesn't exist and likely never will, considering there seems to be widespread ignorance of the deceptive and malevolent background behind "cultural marxism" in Australian society.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Fey (talk • contribs) 01:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not really a matter of cultural Marxism being a wrong theory or something like this, it is simply not what the phrase implies, a cultural version of Marxism or Marxism as it pertains to culture. I want to appeal to all participants that we are not in a conflict with StAnselm and we do not need their agreement to end such a conflict with some sort of ceasefire. Consensus can be formed with or without StAnselm or any particular editor. Some of these attempts at reaching out to StAnselm are being misconstrued as settlements with an incorrect understanding that there can be no more additions to the particular content, which shows that StAnselm knows they can't get the article to how they want but will seek to win any obstruction they can. I strongly appeal to everyone but in particular to stop implying that they dislike far-right politics since this is part of what's knocking everything off course and simply not appropriate when discussing how an encyclopaedia should be written. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would support Boscaswell's proposal if it was amended to include a "short and neutral" description as you proposed in addition of the wikilink, to avoid implying that Anning was telling the truth and that "cultural marxism" is an actual plan to "destroy Western civilization and undermine moral values" as the extreme-right often puts it. Otherwise, I dissent, per above reasons, because not issuing any form of explanation on what cultural marxism means and just leaving it there implies that there is an actual "cultural form of marxism" and that communists are indeed "undermining Western culture" as proponents of the theory often claims, and not everyone bothers to click on hypertext links, so the seed would already be planted and inferred. This discussion is quite exhausting to be honest, especially as we already know what the origins of the "cultural marxism" meme are and that it's actual existence is not verified by any facts, but because there is no source that mentions anning "saying that", we have to act as if the term "cultural marxism" is normal and that we don't know jacksquat about it. Reminds me of the whole Cassandra Syndrome the more I look at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Fey (talk • contribs) 02:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

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

When did Fraser Anning become Leader of his party?
So I may have unwittingly started an edit/revert war. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fraser_Anning&diff=908655937&oldid=907420393 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fraser_Anning&diff=908695522&oldid=908655937 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fraser_Anning&diff=908791267&oldid=908695522 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fraser_Anning&diff=908857384&oldid=908791267 I'm willing to admit that I may have been in the wrong to do so, or for merely not discussing the issue first. Anyway, the issue I want to raise, is to get consistency on how to define when a person is established as the Leader of an organisation, in this case a political party. Do we base it on when the party comes into existence, or when by context it's officially registered with the Australian Electoral Commission? Jacqui Lambie is recognised as leader of the Jacqui Lambie Network on the 14th of May 2015, when her party was registered. Cory Bernardi is recognised as leader of Australian Conservatives on the 7th of February 2017, which is when it was founded as a party, but is also recognised to have existed as an activist group on 6th July 2016. Bob Katter is recognised leader of Katter's Australian Party on the 5th of June 11, but the party's registration did not come into effect until the 27th of September. Fraser's party, Fraser Anning's Conservative National Party, was registered on the 2nd of April this year. The earliest known existence of the party that I can find dates back to January: https://www.afr.com/news/politics/fraser-anning-registers-fraser-annings-conservative-national-party-20190111-h19ym9 So we have 1 example of a politician who assumed leadership office of their party on the day of its registration, 1 example of after it was created (and its status quo changing from an activist group to a political party), and 1 of before it was registered. Where does this leave Fraser for his party? Tytrox (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Former politician?
Anning lost his seat but he's still the leader of his party. Should the lead sentence refer to him as a former or current politician? Cheers, trainsandtech (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Refer to him as a politician if he still has a party. "Politician" does not mean MP.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Arguably you don't need a party to be a politician. Some Independents have no party association whatsoever (Andrew Wilkie for instance).Tytrox (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course you don't, but how is that relevant?--Jack Upland (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Your wording reads as if it suggests that politicians require a party association to be considered a politician. It might not be what you meant in literal terms or whatever, but it's how it can be misinterpreted. I think we're agreeing on the same thing anyway overall.Tytrox (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, false inference. If he has a party, I would say he is definitely a politician, whether elected to parliament or not. But that is not to say politicians can't be independent without a party. That does not logically follow.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

How can he simply "move" to the United States?
The article tells us he moved to the United States. It also tells us he is an Australian citizen. I too am an Australian citizen. I cannot simply move to the United States just because I want to. Quite a few hoops have to be jumped through. That part of the article needs some further explanation. HiLo48 (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The source actually says, Sources close to Mr Anning say he is currently visiting family in the United States and has not said when he will return to Australia. I will amend the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have also moved the information about his bankruptcy to the final section. It doesn't belong in "Personal life and family history" for chronological and thematic reasons. I have also got rid of a lot of repetition. I don't think we know where he is. He could well be in the USA, hoops or no hoops.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)