Talk:One Nation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New page name - One Nation

The party has been renamed as per November 2025 - from Pauline herself and evidently as described in the rest of this article. Shouldn't the page name be changed to reflect this? Either just "One Nation" which seems to be the most common name or "One Nation Party" Shrubshire (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid that around where I live the most common name is One Notion, but I don't live among Hanson supporters. PHON is commonly used in print. Rarely One Nation alone. But our personal experiences don't count for much. What reliable sources say matters the most. HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
User:Shrubshire are you suggesting it has been renamed to just "One Nation" or to "Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party" (per their Facebook)? I would suggest One Nation is the common name – which would make the article title One Nation (Australia) – but I note the AEC website still give its official name as "Pauline Hanson's One Nation". I T B F 📢 09:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
@ITBF the party changed from "Pauline Hanson's One Nation" to "One Nation". See here for an announcement. I was thinking about this being a likely possibility today after the defection of a high profile politician, Barnaby Joyce from the National Party to One Nation. Hanson is getting on in years and I'd suspect she's thinking about her legacy and the future of the party without her.
Probably best to wait to see this reflected in reporting in news media because if we're going to rename this then I'd think it might be something that affects the One Nation disamb page given it is potentially the PTOPIC. TarnishedPathtalk 10:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation. It's slightly tricky because how do you distinguish Pauline Hanson's One Nation from Pauline Hanson's One Nation in prose? Certainly in headlines "One Nation" would have to be the common name already. I'm a little bit on the fence with regard to One Nation being the primary topic – one-nation conservatism has historically gotten similar page views and has equal or greater claims to historical significance, but I'm not sure there's actually much likelihood of confusion. I T B F 📢 13:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
As I said, probably best to wait until reporting reflects the change. Here's a pageview analysis of all the political pages listed on the dab page if you're interested. TarnishedPathtalk 14:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
I think the only WP:RS that matters is the AEC website. Once the party name has changed with the AEC, it should be reflected here; how it is referred to in the media is irrelevant. The ON website mostly refers to itself as ON but still uses PHON in their registered address and party logo for legal reasons, so the name has not officially changed yet, despite the announcement. Maranello10 (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
That argument isn't going to hold up in a move discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 12:52, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Why? If it officially becomes the name, what would be the basis for continuing to call it PHON at that point? The media reporting would likely coalesce anyway from PHON to ON (moreso) once it happens. The only question would be, as you mentioned, whether it becomes the PTOPIC and affects the disamb page or gets changed to "One Nation (Australia)". Maranello10 (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
Why? Because we name things how we expect people to find them. So if for example the media kept on referring the party has PHON, for whatever reason, we could probably expect people to keep searching for that. TarnishedPathtalk 14:12, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
The media uses both names, and increasingly One Nation. A quick, unscientific search provides articles from this week published by the ABC and The Guardian Australia, which used "One Nation" exclusively in their titles and content. I still see PHON used when it comes to polling articles, such as this Australian article reporting on this week's Newspoll in The Australian, as it is still officially their name. I would expect this to change too if the party name changes officially with the AEC. If the argument is to use the name that is in the wider lexicon, I would argue that "One Nation" is already ahead. However, I think it is a moot point until if and when the name is changed with the AEC. At that point, I fail to see how using the official name, which is also being used in the media and by the party itself, is controversial. Maranello10 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
You could be correct that common usage will change once the name charnges with the AEC, but that is not guaranteed. TarnishedPathtalk 23:20, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Categories

@Mhaot, I have notice that you have provided contentious categories (Category:Anti-black racism in Australia & Category:Anti-indigenous racism in Australia) to this article it is to best avoid this unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Please provided sources to such claims or remove the categories. See MOS:LABEL and WP:NPOV. ~2026-58078-1 (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Where it says the party's political spectrum affiliation is wrong

One Nation is moderate right at most, I'd say they're centre-right to right wing. They're absolutely not far right, it's genuinely laughable as far as I'm concerned lol. ~2026-96102-1 (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Have a look a the sources supporting the claims in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Luckily, Wikipedia pages aren't subject to your personal views Loytra✨ 12:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Splitting off State Histories

Before I make a big change, I'd like to raise it here. The party's history section has become significantly bloated and unfocused in its writing since 2016, making it unencylopedic and difficult to read.

As a part of the tidy-up, I'd suggest that the PHON state branch histories and electoral results be moved to their own separate pages. The main article would be primarily focused on the Federal government branch, similar to the pages for the Australian Greens and National Party of Australia (e.g. New South Wales National Party).

What's everyones thoughts about this change? Catiline52 (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

There should be separate state branch pages with their own electoral results and leave the federal One Nation page for federal results and history. I agree Lowbudgetlaptop (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
That would be great to move state and territory branches to seperate pages. In order for each branch to receive an article, you will first need to determine whether they are notable and see if enough sources exist to support the information you want to provide.
Another reason it would be so good to move local party branches to their own articles is because they may be somewhat independent of the federal party. Something has always felt like it is missing considering that other Australian political parties had their state and territory branches in an article but One Nation does not. Given their recent rise in the opinion polls, it does seem wise to create these articles. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2026

Change “is a far-right extremist group” to “is a right-wing populist political party” Change the ideologies “white-supremacy, white-nationalism, white Australia, etc” back to “Hansonism, Conservatism, Right-wing populism” which was one of the previous edits made on this page. Could I also request that vandalism be taken more seriously and that protected pages are actually protected and not allow members of the public to make edits after a certain time. Thanks ~2026-18016-57 (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

look at the edit history over the past few days. it seems there has been an edit war/vandalism going on.
there are some unsubstantiated or otherwise emotional claims like "far-right extremist" or "far-right claims" and with ideologies like neo-nazism, white supremacy etc in the infobox. i have not been able to find information within the article to back these claims up, so i've reverted these changes until they can be properly attributed to a reliable source. someone's probably going to undo my edits though...
Psnq0009 (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 23 March 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is consensus that One Nation is both the common name and the primary topic. There is concern that this is Australia-centric, but COMMONNAME privileges use in English-language sources and data provided have proven primacy. (closed by non-admin page mover) Iseult Δx talk to me 06:25, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

– Per WP:COMMONNAME. I'm struggling to find any WP:RS that still refer to the party as 'Pauline Hanson's One Nation' (PHON).

The AEC does still list the party as PHON here, and the One Nation website still uses PHON (likely for legal reasons to align with the AEC registration), but the party is increasingly being referred to as 'One Nation' instead of PHON in the majority of news and political publications.

The party announced in October last year the name would be changed here.

Google News search doesn't show any sources referring to the party as PHON in any of the pages I browsed.

Suggest replacing the disambig page at One Nation as I believe this is the WP:PTOPIC. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Shrubshire, HiLo48, ITBF, TarnishedPath, and Maranello10: (pinging editors from previous discussion). SnowyRiver28 (talk) 09:34, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment: A pageview analysis and a Wikinav analysis from the current dab page for anyone interested. TarnishedPathtalk 10:10, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Ps, another pageview analysis from 1 July 2015 to present. TarnishedPathtalk 23:35, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose: In Britain one-nation conservatism would probably be considered the primary topic for the phrase, and other countries might have their own primary topics for it, with this being the one for Australia. I would be inclined towards One Nation (Australian political party); One Nation (Israel) might be better titled One Nation (Israeli political party). Ham II (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    The WikiNav link provided by @TarnishedPath above suggests provides the following destinations for readers hitting the disambig page:
    Data from February 2026, rounded to 1 decimal place. Taken from WikiNav on Toolforge.
    This data clearly suggests that PHON is article the majority of people hitting the disambig page are looking for. Doesn't this mean we should make it the primary topic and link to the disambig page in a hatnote? SnowyRiver28 (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    Is there a way of getting a breakdown of readers by country? Ham II (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    Not that I’m aware of, though I agree that would be a useful metric. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    Perceived PTOPIC grabs are generally going to be contested. TarnishedPathtalk 11:31, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    Pardon my ignorance, but contested how? Shouldn't this be a case of of 'what do the majority of visitors to a page want to see, let's point them there right away'? SnowyRiver28 (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    I agree that it should be about making navigation easier. TarnishedPathtalk 11:40, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Support – common name and primary topic. As per the pageviews analysis PHON was receiving significantly more views than all the other "one nation" topics even in mid-2025 period after the federal election and before the polling surge. I find it implausible that people looking for "one-nation conservatism" would be confused with "One Nation"; in the British context "one nation" is rarely capitalised and almost always followed by the word "conservative". PHON would seemingly outweigh the other topics in terms of historical significance given the substantial coverage in academia dating back to the party's emergence in the 1990s. I T B F 📢 12:13, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
    What would the target of one nation without capitalisation be if the Australian party becomes the target of One Nation? WP:SMALLDETAILS suggests that One Nation and One nation can have different targets, so I think the target for the term when it's not in title case should probably be the disambiguation page. Should the title of that dab page be One nation or One Nation (disambiguation)? At WP:DABNAME "The simplest form of the term is preferred to those containing punctuation and articles" seems to support One nation, and "The spelling that reflects the majority of items on the page is preferred to less common alternatives" seems to support One Nation (disambiguation), but perhaps the argument for the latter is stronger. Ham II (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Support, it does seem to be PRIMARYTOPIC at this point in time.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support -- Consistency as primary topic of the disambiguation Wikiuser4999 (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would prefer to wait until the party’s official name is updated with the AEC (as it remains formally registered as Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (PHON) and continues to use that name in formal contexts). However, within the framing of this move, One Nation is now clearly the WP:COMMONNAME and likely the WP:PTOPIC. If the choice is between doing it now or not doing it at all, I don’t have a strong objection to moving now. Maranello10 (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Support: Having fully considered the pageview and Wikinav evidence, I am comfortable that One Nation satisfies WP:PTOPIC. Combined with satisfying WP:COMMONNAME, it outweighs any concerns about AEC naming timing. Maranello10 (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
*Support: Even though the AEC still has them registered as Pauline Hanson's One Nation, the party has clearly been moving away from this styling, the Australian parliament website also now refers to them as just One Nation rather than PHON, I think it would make more sense to do it when the party change what they have registered with the AEC, but ultimately it i don't oppose changing it just One Nation Auspol4 (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
"One Nation" is already listed as their registered abbreviation with the AEC, which is probably why it is allowed to be used on the Australian parliament website. All else being equal, it does strengthen the case for changing it. Maranello10 (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
While that is true, the party has only begun to be referred to as simply 'One Nation' on the aph.gov.au website from at least February-March of this year, judging from archive.org Wikiuser4999 (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
The recency of the website shift makes the intervention more timely. I would still prefer to wait, but a move either now or later seems inevitable. An article from The Australian dated 19 January on the latest Newspoll still referred to them as PHON (which was already uncommon in news coverage at the time, aside from polling). A similar article from The Australian dated 1 March used ON. From a purely WP:COMMONNAME perspective, I think the discussion is basically over. Maranello10 (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Politics/Political parties, WikiProject Conservatism, WikiProject Australian politics, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Women, and Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board have been notified of this discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PTOPIC. Searches I've conducted indicate that One Nation is indeed now the common name and the Wikinav and Pageview analysis links I've provided above show the Australian political party to be the primary topic, going back at least 21 months which is good enough for me as far as long-term significance goes. TarnishedPathtalk 05:12, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Support a move, not sure about the target but also just noting that the state branches' websites all seem to be branded "One Nation South Australia", etc. (which I've removed for now as it's a section in the main article and needs renaming anyway). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:40, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly the primary topic now. Very unlikely readers will be searching for One Nation and expecting information on One nation conservatism. AusLondonder (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose. From an Australian perspective, I think we are very vulnerable to falling into the trap of WP:BUTIKNOWABOUTIT, the fact is there are different articles with variations of the title "One Nation" for international topics. If the party changes their official name, I would change my position but for now, this only serves to remove information. I could however support the disambiguation "One Nation (Australian political party)" or "One Nation (Australia)" as those provide valuable information as to what this article may be about. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support per nom GuesanLoyalist (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and above. It does seem from the evidence that this party is the primary topic for "One Nation". However, should consensus see otherwise, I'm also willing to support "One Nation (Australia)" or "One Nation (Australian political party)". Jeffrey34555 (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Support both common name and primary topic. StAnselm (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Support "One Nation" is the most common name in the media and in general vernacular. Although I'm also open to having "One Nation (Australia)" or "One Nation Party" as i suggested in the earlier section to distinguish it from other one nation articles. Shrubshire (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"initially focused criticising the existence of non-Anglo-Celtic people in Australia"

this is a blatant lie, Pauline was married to a Polish immigrant, Corey Bernardi is Italian, there have been numerous non-white candidates and Fraser Anning was expelled for supporting White Australia. remove this lie. ~2026-18566-81 (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

this was added by Wistherdisc the same editor who added that One Nation is a Neo-Nazi Party. why is this blatant bias allowed on Wikipedia. ~2026-18566-81 (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
 Done: Further discussion per WP:RS can take place on the Talk page if needed. Maranello10 (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2026

Change "Political Position: Right-wing to Far-right" to "Political Position: Right-wing" ~2026-14576-74 (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Qwerty123M (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Move 'seats in local government' to 'List of One Nation elected representatives'

I added the seats in local government side info a while back as it is used on other party pages such as some of the state divisions of political parties (eg victorian greens) problem is one nation doesnt really specify what councillors are affiliated with the party in the way the greens do (the vic greens website lists all of them), and if one nation keeps to grow the councillor list could continue to grow and get a bit bloated, while also being a bit misleading as we wont have a way of knowing the exact amount of affiliated councillors

At some point a page that details all one nation elected reps was made, and i took the time to add some of the local councillors to it, would it be a good idea if we deleted the seats in local government side bar and instead put all of the councillors onto the elected reps page? Auspol4 (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of detailing elected reps on general pages for parties. In some extreme cases (Victorian Socialists) I've seen editors try and push each and every elected rep into the lead. If an elected rep is notable enough for anyone to give a shit, they can have their own page and detail their affiliation on that. Others may differ. TarnishedPathtalk 07:59, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
No. That would be counter-productive to remove the sidebar and as TarnishedPath said many councillors are not notable unlike members of state, territory or federal Parliaments. Qwerty123M (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI