Talk:Fraser Anning

Inaccurate and Potentially Defamatory Assertions Posted as Fact

A number of inaccurate assertions are included in the text of this page which are not supported by the references. SequiturBlur (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Can you please detail each assertion and the reference/s which you believe don't support it. Dot points generally work best at focusing attention. Pinging @GraziePrego. TarnishedPath^talk 07:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

White Rose Society and ABC News did not "detail the white supremacist links of some of Anning's closest advisers."

The journalist who writes under the pseudonymn "White Rose Society" and an ABC article did allege that two junior advisors of Anning had "white supremacist" links. No one provided any evidence that they were his "closest advisers."

Based on the articles cited, Erikson attended two events also attended by Anning and based on multiple reports Erikson appears to be a far-right activist. Erikson was convicted of "disturbing a religious service" although most people wouldn't even be aware that this was a crime. That doesn't make Erikson Anning's "companion," as there is no evidence that they ever met before the St Kilda protest and even calling Erikson a "convicted criminal" makes him sound like Al Capone and is misleading. Just stick to the facts and say what he was convicted of and what is known about their association.

The True Blue crew is undoubtedly a right wing activist group, but no evidence was adduced for the potentially defamatory allegation that it was a "militant white supremacist group."

True Blue Crew's "members and supporters" have not "been linked to right-wing terrorism". One member of the group, Phillip Galea was convicted of planning a terrorist act, but that doesn't mean that the whole organisation is "linked to terrorism" any more than the fact that a former ALP MP has been convicted of pedophilia means that the ALP is "linked to pedophilia."

Repeating unsupported allegations and journalistic hyperbole is not a valid basis for a would-be encyclopedia entry. If you want to include it, then preface it with the phrase "The Guardian newspaper alleges..." but better still, let's avoid sensationalism and leave it out.

Anning's maiden speech did not "call for a plebiscite to reintroduce the white Australia policy" at all. It called for "a plebiscite to allow the Australian people to decide who comes here" and this was actually agnostic on who that would be. In his speech Anning did talk favourably about "predominantly European immigration" but never argued for a "white Australia" or "white immigration," and there is no evidence he even used the phrase "the white family."

The reference cited is mainly about his comments on the shooting in New Zealand and has very little on this speech.

I would like to provide a reference with a link to the text of Annings speech here so readers can see exactly what he said for themselves.

Full text: Senator Fraser Anning's maiden speech | SBS News

I thought it was relevant to point out Hanson's hypocrisy in condemning Anning when she had said very similar things herself many times over the years and had basically built her career on the right wing "dog whistle."

Perhaps we could include this reference to support this: Hanson's 'controversial, outlandish' comments on Islam draw disappointment | SBS News

The report on the altercation with the individual at Cronulla is also misleading. Video footage does show an altercation but it also shows the photographer pursuing the accused out of the park and apparently challenging him before the first punch was thrown. This is alleged in the video by one of those present. While the article does assert that he was an "Anning supporter" no evidence is given for that and it appears pure journalistic speculation. The article also fails to mention that the charges against the individual were dropped by the police. Max Towns has charges dropped over Daily Telegraph attack | Daily Telegraph

None of the references appear to provide any evidence for the claim that he was a member of the True Blue Crew and once again, the assertion that the True Blue Crew Is a "militant white supremacist group that has been linked to terrorism" is unsupported and potentially defamatory, as set out above. SequiturBlur (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

From The Guardian[1]:

The White Rose Society, researchers, and the ABC have detailed the white supremacist links of some of Anning’s closest advisers. His entourage has included convicted criminals and extremists such as Neil Erikson, who was one of the heavies who tackled and choked a teenager who egged the senator.

The source clearly supports what is in article.

Also from that source:

Following the Christchurch shooting, the True Blue Crew was booted from Facebook for incendiary posts about Islam. Experts who have studied the group say it appears to be “committed to violence”. Members have been arrested with weapons, and on terrorism-related charges.

We're just summarising what a reliable source states, so no defamation. I suggest you go read our page about True Blue Crew which details Phillip Galea's terrorism offenses. He was a member of True Blue Crew.

I can't be bothered addressing the rest of what you wrote right now, because WP:TLDR. If you want me to further consider your arguments I suggest you put them in dot point form like I suggested above. TarnishedPath^talk 04:25, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

"True Blue Crew's "members and supporters" have not "been linked to right-wing terrorism". One member of the group, Phillip Galea was convicted of planning a terrorist act, but " I had to laugh at this.

Also "calling Erikson a "convicted criminal" makes him sound like Al Capone and is misleading"? He is a convicted criminal, how is that misleading?

I think this proposal for a change of wording is not thought out very well, so I disagree with the proposed changes. GraziePrego (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed change of wording too.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:28, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I think reviewers have misunderstood what I have said. I argued that some of the article is not supported by the references because either:

1. It is based on newspaper articles, such as the one on Anning's maiden speech that are factually wrong. I attached a link to the full text of Anning's speech to demonstrate this; or

2. It states as fact what has been said in the quoted newspaper article reference as simply unsupported allegations.

If the writer wishes to include these statements they should be expressed as "The Guardian newspaper (or other) alleges that..."

It may come as a surprise to younger readers, but allegations are not facts however much someone may agree with them and while political allegations unsupported by evidence may make for good journalism, they should not be represented as "facts" in an encyclopedia entry. SequiturBlur (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your condescending attitude, but you have three experienced editors here who disagree with you and I've quoted text demonstrating that what is written in the article is supported by reliable sources. TarnishedPath^talk 09:43, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

The point of WP:RS is that they’re sources we know to be reliable. It’s explicitly so that we don’t have to qualify facts found in those sources with “[outlet] alleges xyz.” GraziePrego (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2025 (UTC)