Talk:March for Australia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that an anti-immigration protest in Adelaide was ended by organiser Mark Aldridge after it was hijacked by neo-Nazis? Source: https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/adelaide-breakfast/march-for-australia/105719748
  • ALT1: ... that an attendee at a anti-immigration protest in Adelaide carried a placard depicting Dezi Freeman, the alleged perpetrator of the Porepunkah police shootings? Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-01/police-search-over-dezi-freeman-sign-at-anti-immigration-rally/105719838
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/HMAS Emu, Template:Did you know nominations/Susan Close
  • Comment: Open to suggestions for hooks.

Improved to Good Article status by TarnishedPath (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 20 past nominations.

TarnishedPath^talk 07:09, 8 March 2026 (UTC).

• I’ve always thought Bob Katter’s press conference incident could be a good DYK hook for this article. OrbitalVoid49 (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Unfortanetly that wold probably not be considered because of WP:DYKBLP. TarnishedPath^talk 20:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• Recent GA (date, size, QPQ, all fine). Hooks are ok, I think 2nd is more clear and precise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Addition of contentious material from Sky News and Herald Sun

@Nightmares26 in your edits at Special:Diff/1352629138/1352681769 you added contentious material from Sky News and the Herald Sun.
Per WP:RSP on Sky News The talk shows for Sky News Australia engage in disinformation and should be considered generally unreliable. The majority of articles labeled as "news" contain short blurbs and video segments, which should similarly be considered unreliable. In this particular circumstance, the article used contained Rowan Dean's talk show and is therefore to be considered unreliable.
Likewise Herald Sun is unreliable. See WP:RSN discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 426#Reliability of the Herald Sun in which I detail that occaions on which various members of the community have made assessments that it is unrleliable.
Please do not reinstate the content without consensus on reliablity of the sources (refer to WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN). Ps, you may wish to raise them at WP:RS/N. TarnishedPath^talk 02:15, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

The content referenced from SkyNews is from the article body written by Charlie Tchetchenian, not the top video segment which is a seperate segment taken from Rowan Dean's talk show, which appears above multiple articles. The consensus was is that the short blurbs and video segments are to be considered unreliable which are not being referenced here. Nightmares26 (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I was unaware that the the Herald Sun is now considered unreliable, thank you for linking the discussion. Nightmares26 (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Regarrdring Sky News, even if we take the article body itself in isolation, it's still not a reliable source and we shouldn't be relying on it for contentious claims. TarnishedPath^talk 04:29, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

You seem to be making up your own rules here. The close suggested against using it for "extraordinary" claims (with no stated justification). Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

So you think it's generally a good idea to use sources which aren't considered WP:GREL for contentious claims? TarnishedPath^talk 10:24, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

You did not respond to my comment at all. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The material in dispute is that counter-protestors, on their way to meet the main protest, clashed with police. Is this actually a contentious claim? If so, why? If it's not contentious than the sourcing shouldn't be an issue. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:39, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The counter-protesting is covered immediately after where Nightwares was editing (see March for Australia#Counter protest clashes) and that section mostly has better sourcing (not perfect, but better, I've tagged the two remaining Sky News citations there as needing better sourcing). Why would we need to increase the article reliance on sources which are not considered GREL? TarnishedPath^talk 10:54, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Your response misses the point. Why would we not try to document all of the relevant reliable information we can find? Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Because our guidelines tell us that our articles should be based on sources which have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking (e.g. WP:REPUTABLE). Our guidelines don't state "find any sources you can to cover the material". When there are better sources available, why do we need to use ones that aren't considered WP:GREL? TarnishedPath^talk 11:14, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The issue is there are no better sources available for the claim in question. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

You seem not to have heeded the close: it would be premature to declare that Sky News AU news coverage is as unreliable as its opinion content and begin purging all citations from Wikipedia. As such, please self-revert. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

"... as unreliable as its opinion content" (bolded for emphasis) ... "it would be prudent to exercise caution when citing Sky News AU". TarnishedPath^talk 11:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah ok. You were just exercising caution - my mistake to think there was any tendentiousness involved. Must be very cautious of the source for which no one has found innaccuracies, in case they start reporting things we don't want people to know! Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

That counter-protestors clashed with police, which is already covered in the article and supported by better sources (e.g., Nine News and SBS)? TarnishedPath^talk 12:10, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

OP made it very clear what was being cited that wasn't in other sources. Did you choose to ignore them? Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, but you didn't remove it because it was redundant or anything like that, you removed it because you said the source was not sufficiently reliable. Are you saying the material is contentious or not? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:06, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I removed it for multiple reasons. 1) The stating that the counter protestors marched down from Camp Soveriegnty, I find this claim to be contentious given a) the prior reporting on neo-nazis bashing women and old people at that location and b) no WP:GREL sources cover it. If it indeed did happen, and if it is of any significance at all, why are no reliable sources covering it? Just because a source covers something it doesn't mean it gets to make it into an article (WP:VNOT covers this). Further, the more substantive and significant material on counter-protestors clashing with police (throwing bottles, etc) is already covered in the article and supported by reliable sources. I'm not seeing any good argument for inclusion of the material, especially given it is supported by sourcing which is not considered by the community to be WP:GREL. TarnishedPath^talk 22:56, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

It does not matter if the claim is contentious, or if you think it is contentious because something else happened in the same location months earlier. It's not extraordinary at all. You seem to be not hearing the fact that Sky News' news coverage has not been demonstrated to be unreliable, and that you have no right to go around removing information from articles at will. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm going avoid further engaging with you given your continued incivility and aspersions. TarnishedPath^talk 08:53, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Nonsense. Please self-revert as you are clearly in the wrong. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Really, no WP:GREL sources cover it, how about googling it first, took me 5 seconds to find a WP:GREL that covers it. Here's a piece by the Sydney Morning Herald that says "The counter-protest was initially led by a procession of First Nations people who marched from Camp Sovereignty on Sunday morning." ~2026-29135-56 (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, so use that source then. Anything else? TarnishedPath^talk 09:29, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Well that strikes at the heart of your position, doesn't it? You said this material was contentious and when pressed to explain why you said it was because no generally reliable source covered it (siding aside for a moment whether or not Sky is generally reliable). But there is a source which is unambiguously generally reliable and acceptable to you that was found very quickly, which suggests you never checked. On what grounds then could you determine this material was contentious, and unilaterally insist on its removal? I'm not even advocating for or against the material here, I'm in this discussion from the Sky topic on the RSN. This just strikes me as ad hoc. Obviously no editor can be expected to have considered every single possible source but if you have several other editors inclined to support/allow a change, and you're telling them all no, surely you need to be very confident that you've done your due diligence? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 14:06, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I removed content which was based on sourcing which isn't GREL. Sourcing has been presented which is GREL. I've stated that an editor could make edits based on the GREL source. What exactly is the issue anymore? TarnishedPath^talk 14:45, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The process you used to decide if the claim was contentious and if you could exclude Sky from the article. You said you decided it was contentious because it was only made it a non-GREL source (again, granting that for the sake of discussion), which meant that source wasn't able to be included. As it transpired that was not true and had never been true, so the non-GREL source was always acceptable. This does not seem like a reliable process. You just unilaterally decided a claim was contentious and were quite happy to insist on its exclusion even when numerous other editors said it was not contentious. I don't get how this is editorially workable. I appreciate you've changed your position but you only actually clarified your criteria after I pressed you on it, until that point the focus was exclusively on Sky rather than the contentious-ness of the claim. With the benefit of hindsight we should all be able to agree there was nothing in principle wrong with the original material and source added, right? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:37, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Nothing has changed about my position in relation to SkyNews. Community consensus is that it is less than generally reliable. Since an article has been presented from a source, which the communicty considers to be geenerally reliable, if editors wish to use that source then that option is available. TarnishedPath^talk 23:59, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Ps, thankyou for drawing to my attention that Sky is used elsewhere. I have removed one instance where another citation was already present and I have marked the other two with needing better sources. In one of your edit summaries, you stated that Sky was used eight times throughout the article, I was only able to find three. TarnishedPath^talk 04:35, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Just for reference there is a discussion at RSN about this issue, see WP:RSN#Clarification. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:18, 10 May 2026 (UTC)