Talk:One Nation

Why is one nation not far right?

The ideology of hansonism is listed as far right and pro white Australia policy so why does one nation not say that too? i suggest we add these changes to make it more accurate Pixelafghahdga (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Pixelafghahdga, far-right is in the infobox but we also have multiple citations that call the party right-wing. Helper201 (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

That is an absolute joke of a claim you’ve just made. One Nation are considered right wing or right wing populist in terms of global standards. ~2026-18016-57 (talk) 08:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

We're not basing our decision on international or domestic standards, that is original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Instead, we must use the wording that reliable sources contain, even if the sources are not fully up to date. Remember that on Wikipedia you must not let your feelings cloud your judgement and instead base your decisions on policies, guidelines and essays. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

One Nation has consistently been against Far-Right political parties. It is not right-wing at all. But then again, this is Leftiepedia, and the editors are all lefties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-31748-20 (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

What far-right parties has One Nation "consistently been against", may I ask? Loytra^✨ 12:04, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Most sources describe the party as merely 'right-wing' or 'right-wing populist', such as the one listed at the infobox. ~2026-32640-19 (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

We favour what independent, secondary, reliable sources say over self-ascription. TarnishedPath^talk 00:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

This issue of "pigeon-holing" a political party using simplistic (and usually somewhat derogatory) terms comes up all the time, particularly with new or newly popular parties as One Nation seems to be. What sources are "truly independent"? It's very hard to be sure about the independence of any source! Instead of trying to agree on simplistic labels (doomed!), why not just document the party's policies (cited from their own website or representative's speeches) and let the reader decide what they think about the party (including whether they think it's right-wing or populist or loonie left or Communist or ...). We don't need to think for the reader and we should not think for them. Give them facts and let them think for themselves. See WP:NPV and MOS:LABEL. Kerry (talk) 08:01, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

why not just document the party's policies (cited from their own website or representative's speeches)

Because that would likely constitute original research. We summarise what secondary sources state, not running PR for political parties. TarnishedPath^talk 08:39, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Logo change?

A while back the logo used for the party on the page was changed, with the 'pauline hanson's' directly above 'ONE NATION' being deleted, as far as i am aware its still the same image file that was used, but it just cropped out the pauline hanson part, eventually this change was reverted and it once again displays 'pauline hansons one nation' as it is currently

but a while back before that, the logo had been changed to the profile picture used on the one nation facebook, which is just an orange background with the words one nation

the party has increasingly been stylising themselves as just one nation, we also just had a discussion on changing the name of the page to just one nation rather then pauline Hansons one nation, i think its sending a mixed message with us having the page name as just one nation but keeping the logo as pauline hansons one nation

i see 3 options

1. keep it the same (include pauline hansons name in the logo)
2. revert to the first change (facebook page profile picture)
3. revert to the cropped logo of the current one (which omits the pauline hanson part)

curious on others thoughts on what should be done here, if anything

i am personally in favour of number 3 Auspol4 (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Their website still uses a "Pauline Hanson's One Nation" logo. See https://www.onenation.org.au/. TarnishedPath^talk 11:25, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm starting to see the logo as "One Nation"

They've slowly started to change the brand across social media and advertisements and i recently saw that One Nation Victoria lodged an application to drop Pauline Hansons name from there logo

I'm also in favour for number 3. Lowbudgetlaptop (talk) 04:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Please Explain - the animated series

I can find no mention of the animations on this or the PH page. Odd for something mentioned quite seriously by Media Watch https://www.youtube.com/shorts/2LU1C-513iQ

Or is it covered elsewhere ? Greglocock (talk) 06:20, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

It has it's own Wiki page at Pauline Hanson's Please Explain. If it's not mentioned in either article it should probably be placed in the 'See also' sections. TarnishedPath^talk 07:54, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

It should definitely have a mention in the see also section if it is not to be referenced in the article. Qwerty123M (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Greglocock (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Time to sort out "state and territory branches" pages?

For a while there has been separate pages for One Nation in QLD & NSW, and previously one for SA (when Sarah Game was a member, which has since been deleted, though a new draft page was recently made in light of the 2026 state election)

With the discussion on deleting the Warren Pickering page centring around Notability, i think it would be a good time to determine what if any state branches should have their own pages based on how notable they are in their own right

The main point of me bringing this up is i don't want us to keep running circles depending on the time period of if a state/territory branch is notable

To summarise the state of them all

QLD - Has its own page (Obviously the most famous branch and i think it has a good case by itself to exist)

Verdict - Support page

NSW - Has its own page (made during Latham Era of leadership, Party currently has no state MP's but has 3 Federal MP's from the state) party also has a history in the state that i think warrants its existence even though they currently are MIA in the state parliament, though they will presumably give the NSW election a strong running

Verdict - Support Page

SA - Used to have a page since 2022 election, (was later deleted prior to 2026 election, currently has a draft to reinstate it, given the decent sized numbers of MP's in this state i think the draft should get approved as an article)

Verdict - Support Page

Vic - Never had a page, party in the news a lot in Vic due to election upcoming and polling, there is history of the party in the state even though they haven't generally run much of a campaign here historically, i think this one is the most conflicting as all eyes in politics are down here, but not much prior has happened (other then them winning a seat in 2022), but i still would learn towards yes based on what is likely to come

Verdict - Support Page

WA - Never had a page but party has won seats in the state prior and currently has seats and a party infrastructure there, I think there's a fair case for this one to exist

Verdict - Support Page

Tas - Never had a page, party hasn't got much history in the state and only now are we really seeing some activity here, in its current state no need for an article but maybe closer to next Tasmanian election there could be a case given Lee Hanson (Paulines daughter and potential heir) is from the state and is campaigning there

Verdict - Oppose Page

NT - Never had a page, some limited electoral campaigning, party looking to grow their Prescence here as far as I can tell but nothing much of note at the moment, probably no need for an article

Verdict - Oppose Page

ACT - Never had a page or contested an election (I think it's safe to say at least in its current state there's no need for an article here)

Verdict - Oppose Page Auspol4 (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Tagging some relevant users here if they have any input

@Lowbudgetlaptop @Geelongite @Mhaot @MrActiniuM @AusLondonder @HiLo48 @TarnishedPath @Qwerty123M @Helper201 Auspol4 (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Agree with Auspol4 fully except for the Tasmania article. I support the page because of Lee Hanson. MrActiniuM ☢️talk 21:43, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Do you think there would be enough reliable sources to create a biography entry on her then? Qwerty123M (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Lee Hanson, doesn't pass WP:NPOL and all of the coverage on her is in relation to controversies involving her mother's decisions. TarnishedPath^talk 03:51, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

That simply isn't true if you examine the coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you please point out the sources where it discusses her directly and in detail as called for by the general notability guideline? Qwerty123M (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Even if that is true, which I don't think it is, that wouldn't be sufficient to demonstrate the notability of any Tasmanian branch. TarnishedPath^talk 08:52, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

As soon as there are enough sources, articles should be created for all of these entities as per the guidance of the general notability guideline. I don't think this needs to be debated as policy documentation has enough detail to make a bold determination by yourself, I'm not saying this discussion is harmful to the community though as it allows others to provide constructive feedback. As far as I'm aware, there is no subject-specific notability guideline for political parties, unlike individual politicians. We don't need to keep running circles around this topic as notability criteria is clear that if multiple sources discuss the topic directly and in detail then an article can be created for that topic. Qwerty123M (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Ive recently created draft pages for Draft:One Nation Victoria and Draft:One Nation South Australia as Victoria now has a state leader and likely to win multiple seats in the next state election and SA recently claimed multiple seats and has a leader. I do agree we should create state branches but i think we should wait for WA, TAS, ACT, NT until we get more information and sources for them Lowbudgetlaptop (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

It's slightly tricky as One Nation doesn't have the traditional structure of Labor/Liberals/Nationals/Greens where the state branches/divisions are autonomous to a considerable extent. Yes, One Nation is registered separately in each state but my understanding is it's a top-down approach where Hanson/Ashby dictate leadership (if any) and operations at a state level. I'm not sure there's a lot you can say encyclopedically other than election results, especially for the smaller states. Perhaps something like List of One Nation state branches or One Nation in Australian state politics could be created. I T B F 📢 04:24, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Reply to original proposal Victoria and South Australia should certainly have their own articles, particularly South Australia where One Nation came second by vote share in the election this year and have a state leader in parliament. Western Australia would also likely warrant an article given they have elected upper house MPs and and a state leader in parliament. Plenty of coverage for South Australian, Victorian, and West Australian branches. Agree there's insufficient at the moment to support ACT and NT pages. AusLondonder (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Also when it comes to political parties, WP:NORG applies. Some arguments above have implied that having multiple elected politicians brings about notability of a political organisation. That's not at all what WP:NORG states. TarnishedPath^talk 08:55, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

It's called using common sense. A political party which is leading in some polls or has elected members of parliament is clearly going to be a notable organisation. Not sure how anyone could seriously suggest otherwise. What kind of encyclopaedia would decide not to feature an article about such a party? AusLondonder (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Please don't argue in that way, this discussion is firmly about notability guidelines and your response is not assuming good faith as you're rejecting other arguments. Qwerty123M (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what your concern with my comments are. In what way did I fail to assume good faith? Disagreeing with something doesn't mean I'm acting in bad faith. AusLondonder (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

You're starting to become quite rude and explicitly disobeying guidelines in this discussion. The fact is you haven't been able to demonstrate notability for state and territory branches as you haven't provided sources, just said that they must be available. If I'm taking an overly broad approach to the good faith guideline, then please let me know and quote the part of the document I am misinterpreting. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you serious? There's absolutely nothing "rude" about what I said nor am I "disobeying any guidelines". If you believe I am please feel free to take me to ANI, otherwise refrain from making accusations. AusLondonder (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Opinion polls don't dictate our notability guidelines, trying to act like they do seems to me to be an argument for WP:RECENTISM. Even if opinion polls did dictate our notability guidelines, which they don't when polls are referenced, I've never heard them refer to the state branches of One Nation. They always refer to the whole organisation. Now if you go and read the applicable guideline (WP:NORG) it explicitly states that it applies to political parties and there is zero mention of polls in that guideline. TarnishedPath^talk 11:08, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

We're seriously going to argue NORG-level coverage isn't going to obviously exist for political parties leading in opinion polls? In what universe would a party that came second in a statewide election fail GNG or NORG? A political phenomenon which has dominated a year of news coverage in Australia? This is exactly why Wikipedia is dying a slow death. The fact that instead of creating content our readers would understandably seek out to learn more about a party attracting unprecedented coverage we are genuinely arguing about whether they're even notable at all. AusLondonder (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

If you have an issue with our notablility guideline on organisations then the correct place to raise it and try and get change is Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). Trying to argue with me about what our notablity guidelines require isn't going to get you anywhere. TarnishedPath^talk 02:00, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't like your tone and I don't think this discussion is achieving much. I never suggested there's an issue with our guidelines. As I literally said in my first sentence above coverage will naturally exist for a party achieving the kind of results One Nation are. I'm not sure what you're actually arguing about. Find me any political party that came second in a statewide election that doesn't meet NORG. AusLondonder (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Please don't make this a personal issue per WP:No personal attacks. Per WP:ONUS, you must now find and provide the citations otherwise we cannot believe these branches are truly notable, drafting an article about any of these branches would be OK though as that is not strictly governed by notability requirements. Remember that news coverage is not an automatically granted thing. Qwerty123M (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Please stop treating me like a newbie. I've been here 11 years and I have nearly 70k contributions. I know our policies. There was zero personal attack there. I have nothing to do with drafting any articles about the state branches. AusLondonder (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not treating you like a newbie. I treat experienced users the same as any other user, if that is wrong please let me know exactly how I can change. I am always gaining experience but I don't ask to be treated differently as I know there is always a new point of view that can be provided, something changing within the community or policies and guidelines that can be studied more. Please don't treat me so rudely like you have begun to with this message, this discussion is about notability, not personal attacks and it is getting to be entirely irrelevant to the main conversation. Qwerty123M (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Much of the news coverage has focused on the national party, not state branches, that is unless you're seeing something we have not yet. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

So you haven't seen any coverage of the South Australian branch? Here's something from the ABC, another piece, Nine Newspapers, ABC Analysis, The Conversation, The Australian, inDaily South Australia, Advertiser Extraordinary we're having this discussion really. We'd never have it about South Australian Greens despite their poorly-sourced article. Really struggling to imagine when a parliamentary party would be non-notable. AusLondonder (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Great, you should create an article based off of those sources. In fact, I would've been very glad for you to boldly create or draft an article prior to this discussion based on those sources. Qwerty123M (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Just looking at the first two sources in that list you provided I think you may have a different idea about what WP:SIRS requires, particularly the first criterion:

"Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth."

Articles discusing that people voted for them and what that means, is not the same as an article which addresses the subject directly and in depth.

Where WP:NORG isn't met for a state branch of a political party, they can be covered in the page for the federal party and I wouldn't exclude The Greens or anyother party from that. TarnishedPath^talk 03:28, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Now suggesting again that I lack understanding of sourcing requirements. I don't think we're going to find common ground here so don't think it is worth discussing further. Let's allow the process to play out through AfD if necessary and hear from other editors. AusLondonder (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

We're talking about creating new article for state and territory branches, not deleting existing ones. Considering that some branches do currently have articles, there is WP:CONSENSUS for those articles to remain due to their satisfactory sourcing and because they have been around for a long time. Anyways, we don't need to push this too much, just understand our concerns with sourcing please. Qwerty123M (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2026 (UTC)