Jump to content

Talk:Pauline Hanson's One Nation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2024


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

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

Infobox - Youth Wing and Other


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

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

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

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

I agree with this. There's been a similar discussion going on in the Australian Labor Party article about whether the Women's, LGTBQI, Young Labor, etc wings should be mentioned in the infobox and my view there was that they should be removed from the infobox and that it is best addressing in the body of the article. TarnishedPathtalk 05:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with moving 'Young Nation' information to a section within the article rather than the infobox as the news citation appears to be the only source for that aspect of the party. As for the membership numbers, the cited source is the only public figure I came across, and I believe its the only number even in the public domain that has ever been published. Although I believe it to be relevant it is fairly old as mentioned. MarioBayo (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]