![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The first sentence mentions in passing that the name was "Labour" until 1912, but I found no explanation of the change to "Labor." It seems odd to use the American spelling for the party name, given that the word is spelled "labour" in any other context. There's also a reference later, under "Early decades," to "At the 1910 election, Fisher led Labor to victory." But if the name wasn't changed until 1912, shouldn't that be Labour? LincMad ( talk) 00:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The ABC is reporting that Kevin Rudd has resigned as Leader and Anthony Albanses has been appointed as the new acting leader. Nford24 ( Want to have a chat?) 12:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Please stop putting Bowen in the table of Leaders. The ALP has had many acting leaders. Every time a Leader resigns or dies, there is an acting leader until the new Leader is elected. This table does not and should not include all the acting leaders. So it should not include Bowen either. As often as people put him in, I will take him out again. Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 10:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I've just protected this article from editing for 72 hours to allow for a resolution (or at least some discussion) of the slow moving edit war over whether the ALP should have an ideology identified in the infobox. This has been lumbering along for a while now, and would benefit from a discussion rather than just too-and-fro reverts. Nick-D ( talk) 10:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The source I have provided on this page, "Political Systems Of The World", is a source that is recognised on Wikipedia as a reliable source. It is used on many other pages, one example being the Christian Democratic Union (Germany), where Centre-right is sourced from this book. I see no reason why the ALP's page should not say it is a Centre-left party with the source being "Political Systems Of The World". Andreas11213 ( talk) 10:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Well until you find a source that suggests your position is indeed a fact, then the infobox should remain the status quo; Centre-left, Social democracy Andreas11213 ( talk) 11:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The article is now unprotected following a freeze applied by Nick-D during which, he suggested, it "would benefit from a discussion". Well several of us have tried. I don't think we've achieved much. Some of us are still trying to teach User:Andreas11213 on his Talk page how to be a respected and productive editor. That discussion doesn't seem to getting far either. We only have that one editor demanding the status quo remains, and that editor is very hard to communicate with. I don't want to unilaterally change the article now, so I think I will ask User:Nick-D to please have another look. HiLo48 ( talk) 06:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, apparently this edit is controversial. My rationale behind the edit is that it's useful to show how many seats each party has in each state parliament, and the graphics are the best way of doing this, as they are clear and don't take up much room. I'm not sure how they can be called "misleading" – the infobox already includes graphics for federal parliament, so it seems logical to extend that to the state and territory parliaments (as a lot of other Australian political party articles do). IgnorantArmies 14:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Frank Anstey was deputy leader with the following article being one that confirms this very fact: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/11299483
Obviously someone needs to fix the deputies list and putting the holders of this office in the proper order. Very disappointed that no one did a thorough research on the deputy leaders.
122.106.80.3 ( talk) 21:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
In the third paragraph of the Early decades at federal level section, there is a sentence fragment that currently reads, "In addition, many members from the working class supported the liberal notion of"
I would suggest one of you guys fix it but I'm scared it might start another edit war.__ 209.179.37.7 ( talk) 02:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Why have political ideology and political position been removed from this article?
I think that saying that the Australian Labor Party is laborist is not a controversial stance. The ALP is connected with the organized labor movement of Australia and it is broadly pro-labor, which underpins all of their policies. 2.218.107.40 ( talk) 20:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
It's also meaningless. To say that the Labor Party is a labour party is not telling anyone anything. The term "laborist" has no currency in Australia and is not a word the ALP has ever used. At the risk of reopening old arguments, let's restate that it is not open to editors to ascribe ideologies or political positions to parties based on their own opinions. Any such ascription must be properly referenced, and not just by reference to other people's opinions. Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 00:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I really enjoy Toadie's contributions, in particular his arrogance being nearly as great as his ignorance, his screamingly funny hatred of proportional representation for Australian lower houses (here's a hint - if even NZ has moved to PR, Australia will too) and his constant disregard for WP:OWN when it comes to his pet articles. He should be given his own TV show. Paul Austin ( talk) 07:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
one editor has twice erased an explicit statement about the ALP from a prominent historian. It gives fresh factual information about the goal of the ALP to build a strong party and emphasize adherence to its written platform. He gives no reason whatever why he is so distressed about a simple factual statement. He thinks it's "controversial" but has not found a single reliable source indicate that it is in any way controversial. Imagine political history having a controversial aspect??? probably he's upset about a reference to the racism in the platform-- maybe he wants to deny ALP's white supremacy stance in 1905. Wikipedia's NPOV rules require the inclusion of all serious interpretations. Here's the statement that gets erased: The ALP goal was to build a tightly disciplined political party, and required strict adherence to its written platform. Historian F.K. Crowley finds that in 1905: :The party's platform owed much to Australian liberals and progressives and something to overseas influences, but was remarkable in its combination of racist, nationalist, socialist, reformist, militarist and idealist objectives.<ref] F.K. Crowley, Modern Australia in Documents: 1901 – 1939 (1973) p 76. </ref] Rjensen ( talk) 16:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Australian Labor Party. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I've searched the article for links of former ALP Premiers, in particular Don Dunstan, but with zero result. Same with History of the Australian Labor Party. It seems if one wants to find ALP Premiers, they would have to go to an article called Leaders of the Australian Labor Party. The only link to this "Leaders" article in the Australian Labor Party article is under a section heading of "ALP federal parliamentary leaders" and in the sentence of "For a list of ALP federal parliamentary leaders and deputy leaders see Leaders of the Australian Labor Party". Is it just me or does this seem like more than a few steps back? Timeshift ( talk) 15:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks TDW. Anyone else care to comment? Timeshift ( talk) 04:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The article's early instructions say to use British English, dated November 2013. Is there some historical/historian's reason for that, or should it be changed to Australian English? Wikiain ( talk) 04:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I was looking on www.alp.org.au for a copyright link like the Liberals have but I can no longer seem to find anything at all. In the absence of anything to claim copyright, am I correct that content at www.alp.org.au has no copyright? Timeshift ( talk) 14:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Per discussion, can anyone link me to any consensus discussion that may or may not have occurred in regards to the name of this article? The article name seems clunky and is ambiguous. What about "List of Labour political parties", to make it clear that this is a list of specific parties with a Labour/Labor trade union movement history. Separate from the content at disambiguation article Labour Party, this list article List of political parties named "Labour Party" or similar could be used as an article for what a Labour Party is, and used in the context of "the Australian Labor Party is a Labour Party that etc". Timeshift ( talk) 08:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I know how I have read up here in the talk page that the Australian Labor Party "has no ideology". But what does everyone else think about the sources that have pointed to the Labor Party having an ideology and a political position? I have several sources that I collected from looking back in the article's history. Whenever or not that they're relevant or if they need new sources to indicate it's political position and ideology. I'm quite certain that we need new citations on it's political position and ideology. Here's the code from way back in 2013: |ideology = [[Social democracy]]<ref>{{Cite book |first=Dennis |last=Woodward |title=Social Democratic Parties and Unions in a Globalized World: The Australian Experience |work=Social Democracy After the Cold War |publisher=Athabasca University Press |year=2012 |pages=183–204}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |first1=Rodney |last1=Smith |first2=Ariadne |last2=Vromen |first3=Ian |last3=Cook |title=Keywords in Australian Politics |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2006 |pages=176ff}}</ref> |position = [[Centre-left]]<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Derbyshire |first1=Ian |last2=Derbyshire |first2=Ian |year= |title=Political Systems Of The World |journal= |publisher=Allied Publishers |volume= |issue= |pages=113 |url=http://books.google.com.au/books?id=DIkWJ3psB2gC&pg=PA113&dq=Political+Systems+Of+The+World+liberal+party+of+australia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TTBeU9j-OsSukgXj3YDoAg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Political%20Systems%20Of%20The%20World%20liberal%20party%20of%20australia&f=false}}</ref>
I know it's no longer part of the Socialist International, so it would definitely mean that it's lost it's "Social Democracy" ideology. I've even thought about if the political party has "progressivism" as it's ideology instead, and if so... it would be great if we could find a reliable source that can verify it. It's just something that I feel is missing.— Platinum Lucario ( talk) 05:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Australian Labor Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I really don't understand you people.
It is perfectly clear that the Australian Labor Party is a third way, social democratic, center to center-left party, just like most social democratic parties of Europe. The party has two official fraction, the Labor Unity, which is more centrist and third way social democracy, and Socialist Left which is more democratic socialist and traditional social democratic fraction.
These things are perfectly clear if you read the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IWA1864 ( talk • contribs) 11:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Based on facts that ideology and position of the Australian Labor Party is quite obvious by reading this article, I will make changes to the article. It is perfectly clear that, Labor Unity fraction is more a third way social democracy, similar to the Tony Blair's New Labour, and the Socialist Left fraction is traditional social democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IWA1864 ( talk • contribs) 10:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I mean, the ideology and position of the party is not controversial at all, and if you read the article it is perfectly clear that the party is a third way social democracy, center to center-left party, just like most social democratic parties of Europe. The party has two official factions, the Labor Unity, which is a third way social democracy like Tony Blair's New Labour, and Socialist Left which is more democratic socialist and traditional social democratic fraction.
All this information is written in the articles about the party, on the wiki page Labor Unity in section political views it states that "The Right views itself as the more mainstream and fiscally responsible faction within Labor, the faction is most famous for its support of Third Way policies over Labor's traditional social democratic policies", and on page Labor Left it states "The Labor Left (also known as the Socialist Left and Progressive Left) is an organized social democratic faction of the Australian Labor Party."
I was just looking over the article history. @ Intelligent Mr Toad 2: contributions are somewhat skewed by the fact that he is a Baby Boomer born in the early 1950s. A lot of what he thinks are "not in use in Australia" or "incorrect usage" *are* in fact used widely by younger non-Baby Boomer Australians and the Australia media generally. Mr Toad seems to think that just because he doesn't like something being used from his Baby Boomer perspective, then that makes it illegitimate, even though a cursory look at news.google.com.au would prove him wrong. Paul Benjamin Austin ( talk) 06:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
The party is neoliberalism stated in the website: link Malayedit ( talk) 06:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Australian Labor Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Per my usertalk discussion, the user is repeatedly reverting to an invalid license image - Paul Keating colour 1989 - for over a dozen Paul Keating articles. If absolutely nothing else, won't even follow WP:BRD - status quo during dispute until consensus. Someone please step in, my attempts to educate have gone unheeded. Raised at [ WP:AUP]. Timeshift ( talk) 17:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Per this. Aside from op-eds (even from journalists) being undesirable references, the source actually says that the ALP received "141,000 from Huang affiliates" not the one person as the inserted text stated, and it does not say what the timeframe was when the rest of the para is referring to the single financial year (and 2015-16 at that!). There are much better references available to work up something good on the topic. Nick-D ( talk) 10:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Nick, sorry that I forgot to correct the omission of "associates". However, could you please discuss any issues with the text here, instead of ignoring my reply and reverting my edit again? 1292simon ( talk) 09:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
This same information is also on the Liberal Party of Australia and National Party of Australia articles, if it is removed / added it should be the same across all three, otherwise it appears biased. Ivar the Boneful ( talk) 10:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to reopen this issue because it has been a few years since the last discussion on it, and consensus has since been reached on this issue as it pertains to other parties in Australia and ideologically similar parties in other countries. I would propose Social democracy [1] and Social liberalism. [2]-- Jay942942 ( talk) 14:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
It seems like lots of people are eager to add ideologies to the infobox but no one seems to want to sit down and write a few coherent paragraphs about them and their relative importance in the ALP ... which would be of much more use to the reader. Ivar the Boneful ( talk) 06:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
The Australian Labor Party is definitely a social-democratic party. -- Checco ( talk) 19:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
We must complete it in the infobox!-- 186.59.190.161 ( talk) 02:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
References
Shorten has updated that he will resign as leader when his successor is chosen. However, a Mobile editor keeps deleting him from the infobox. Would somebody explain things to him? GoodDay ( talk) 23:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I believe the Ideologies of the Australian Labor Party should be visible on the sidebar on the article just like all other Political Party articles on Wikipedia, it would be easier.
SymeonHellas ( talk) 20:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
When we literally state is a major centre-left political party in Australia
, I don't understand why Centre-left
as political position in the infobox would be a problem. We either don't insert it and also change to is a major political party in Australia
, which is what I did
here, or we write it in both lead and infobox.--
Davide King (
talk)
06:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
a major centre-left political party in Australiabut then don't reflect that in the infobox. I can understand for the American Democratic and Republican parties as being an exception; and perhaps for the Australian Greens too (although I hope someday all of this could be fixed with academic, peer-review sources that will better discuss their positions), but I don't get it for this. Is it because the party moved to the centre in the 1980s with the Third Way? That's literally what most social democratic parties did, but we still have
Social democracyand
Centre-leftin the infobox without much issues; and I think reliable sources triumph several users' personal opinions, especially in matters of politics when there's always going to be some bias (is there really no reliable sources that agree with a centre-left consensus?). It's also very American/Anglo-centric to say that
in most other countries in the world the Liberal Party is a left-wing party. As far as I know, whether simply following liberalism or calling itself the Liberal Party, the left-leaning liberal parties are at best centrist to centre-left (social liberal) and most of them are centre-right (conservative liberalism) parties.
[S]o alas it doesn't really get us anywhere closer to an actual general consensus outcome on what to do with these situations, so what's the issue? Is there users who say it's centrist and others who say it's a left-wing, rather than centre-left? A quick research on what reliable sources say should stabily that, whether we personally agree with it or not.-- Davide King ( talk) 14:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
a major centre-left political party in Australiabut then don't reflect that in the infobox. Maybe we could add the two factions in the infobox too like we do for the American Democratic and Republican parties. I think it's very needed an Ideology section that better discusses all this (especially the party reforms since the 1980s, its relation with neoliberalism, how it was the first New Labour, social liberalism, etc.) but there shouldn't be really any controversy with Social demcoracy and Democratic socialism which is what we have for pretty much every like-minded party. We could put a note to not add any unreferenced ideology in the infobox and simply revert any edit that does that; I feel not putting anything in the infobox is a win for them and a loss for Wikipedia. -- Davide King ( talk) 14:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
they support a structural reorganisation of the Australian economy on the basis of worker ownershipthough; and social democracy is a socialist ideology. In other words,
the hundreds of political parties around the world that are routinely described as socialist fail your purity testas argued here and here.-- Davide King ( talk) 09:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
[the ALP] is a major centre-left political party in Australia, so either we delete both or we keep both. As far as I know, there isn't so much controversy as with the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States which includes the whole spectrum, although I would be interested in reading what academic, peer-review sources say about it, if any.-- Davide King ( talk) 09:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Was wondering how we should approach the issue of the Country Labor Party. In NSW, there are two separate Labor Parties which run in elections in both state and federal. [1] Country Labor is financially and politically independent from the NSW Labor Branch (but is still under the 'Australian Labor Party' federally [2]). [3] However, on pages such as this and the state election results, they're treated as the same. Should we separate the Country Labor Party from NSW Labor? Catiline52 ( talk) 03:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
https://www.alp.org.au/media/1574/alp_national_constitution.pdf From the ALP constitution: "The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields." end of story, surely?
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Australian Labor Party (South Australian Branch)... should it be written as Labor or more obvious such as SA Labor et al? Request for comments, thanks. Timeshift ( talk) 02:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
If the Australian Labor Party is described as democratic socialist in the parties own constitution and our article also uses the same descriptor, should the info box reflect this also? Bacondrum ( talk) 01:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
References
I changed the hidden comment to be shorter and in all capital letters here. This was reverted. I thought this was a rather obvious change to make. Can I get anyone here to briefly express they support this? Thanks. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 00:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The first sentence mentions in passing that the name was "Labour" until 1912, but I found no explanation of the change to "Labor." It seems odd to use the American spelling for the party name, given that the word is spelled "labour" in any other context. There's also a reference later, under "Early decades," to "At the 1910 election, Fisher led Labor to victory." But if the name wasn't changed until 1912, shouldn't that be Labour? LincMad ( talk) 00:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The ABC is reporting that Kevin Rudd has resigned as Leader and Anthony Albanses has been appointed as the new acting leader. Nford24 ( Want to have a chat?) 12:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Please stop putting Bowen in the table of Leaders. The ALP has had many acting leaders. Every time a Leader resigns or dies, there is an acting leader until the new Leader is elected. This table does not and should not include all the acting leaders. So it should not include Bowen either. As often as people put him in, I will take him out again. Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 10:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I've just protected this article from editing for 72 hours to allow for a resolution (or at least some discussion) of the slow moving edit war over whether the ALP should have an ideology identified in the infobox. This has been lumbering along for a while now, and would benefit from a discussion rather than just too-and-fro reverts. Nick-D ( talk) 10:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The source I have provided on this page, "Political Systems Of The World", is a source that is recognised on Wikipedia as a reliable source. It is used on many other pages, one example being the Christian Democratic Union (Germany), where Centre-right is sourced from this book. I see no reason why the ALP's page should not say it is a Centre-left party with the source being "Political Systems Of The World". Andreas11213 ( talk) 10:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Well until you find a source that suggests your position is indeed a fact, then the infobox should remain the status quo; Centre-left, Social democracy Andreas11213 ( talk) 11:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The article is now unprotected following a freeze applied by Nick-D during which, he suggested, it "would benefit from a discussion". Well several of us have tried. I don't think we've achieved much. Some of us are still trying to teach User:Andreas11213 on his Talk page how to be a respected and productive editor. That discussion doesn't seem to getting far either. We only have that one editor demanding the status quo remains, and that editor is very hard to communicate with. I don't want to unilaterally change the article now, so I think I will ask User:Nick-D to please have another look. HiLo48 ( talk) 06:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, apparently this edit is controversial. My rationale behind the edit is that it's useful to show how many seats each party has in each state parliament, and the graphics are the best way of doing this, as they are clear and don't take up much room. I'm not sure how they can be called "misleading" – the infobox already includes graphics for federal parliament, so it seems logical to extend that to the state and territory parliaments (as a lot of other Australian political party articles do). IgnorantArmies 14:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Frank Anstey was deputy leader with the following article being one that confirms this very fact: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/11299483
Obviously someone needs to fix the deputies list and putting the holders of this office in the proper order. Very disappointed that no one did a thorough research on the deputy leaders.
122.106.80.3 ( talk) 21:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
In the third paragraph of the Early decades at federal level section, there is a sentence fragment that currently reads, "In addition, many members from the working class supported the liberal notion of"
I would suggest one of you guys fix it but I'm scared it might start another edit war.__ 209.179.37.7 ( talk) 02:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Why have political ideology and political position been removed from this article?
I think that saying that the Australian Labor Party is laborist is not a controversial stance. The ALP is connected with the organized labor movement of Australia and it is broadly pro-labor, which underpins all of their policies. 2.218.107.40 ( talk) 20:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
It's also meaningless. To say that the Labor Party is a labour party is not telling anyone anything. The term "laborist" has no currency in Australia and is not a word the ALP has ever used. At the risk of reopening old arguments, let's restate that it is not open to editors to ascribe ideologies or political positions to parties based on their own opinions. Any such ascription must be properly referenced, and not just by reference to other people's opinions. Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 00:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I really enjoy Toadie's contributions, in particular his arrogance being nearly as great as his ignorance, his screamingly funny hatred of proportional representation for Australian lower houses (here's a hint - if even NZ has moved to PR, Australia will too) and his constant disregard for WP:OWN when it comes to his pet articles. He should be given his own TV show. Paul Austin ( talk) 07:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
one editor has twice erased an explicit statement about the ALP from a prominent historian. It gives fresh factual information about the goal of the ALP to build a strong party and emphasize adherence to its written platform. He gives no reason whatever why he is so distressed about a simple factual statement. He thinks it's "controversial" but has not found a single reliable source indicate that it is in any way controversial. Imagine political history having a controversial aspect??? probably he's upset about a reference to the racism in the platform-- maybe he wants to deny ALP's white supremacy stance in 1905. Wikipedia's NPOV rules require the inclusion of all serious interpretations. Here's the statement that gets erased: The ALP goal was to build a tightly disciplined political party, and required strict adherence to its written platform. Historian F.K. Crowley finds that in 1905: :The party's platform owed much to Australian liberals and progressives and something to overseas influences, but was remarkable in its combination of racist, nationalist, socialist, reformist, militarist and idealist objectives.<ref] F.K. Crowley, Modern Australia in Documents: 1901 – 1939 (1973) p 76. </ref] Rjensen ( talk) 16:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Australian Labor Party. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I've searched the article for links of former ALP Premiers, in particular Don Dunstan, but with zero result. Same with History of the Australian Labor Party. It seems if one wants to find ALP Premiers, they would have to go to an article called Leaders of the Australian Labor Party. The only link to this "Leaders" article in the Australian Labor Party article is under a section heading of "ALP federal parliamentary leaders" and in the sentence of "For a list of ALP federal parliamentary leaders and deputy leaders see Leaders of the Australian Labor Party". Is it just me or does this seem like more than a few steps back? Timeshift ( talk) 15:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks TDW. Anyone else care to comment? Timeshift ( talk) 04:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The article's early instructions say to use British English, dated November 2013. Is there some historical/historian's reason for that, or should it be changed to Australian English? Wikiain ( talk) 04:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I was looking on www.alp.org.au for a copyright link like the Liberals have but I can no longer seem to find anything at all. In the absence of anything to claim copyright, am I correct that content at www.alp.org.au has no copyright? Timeshift ( talk) 14:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Per discussion, can anyone link me to any consensus discussion that may or may not have occurred in regards to the name of this article? The article name seems clunky and is ambiguous. What about "List of Labour political parties", to make it clear that this is a list of specific parties with a Labour/Labor trade union movement history. Separate from the content at disambiguation article Labour Party, this list article List of political parties named "Labour Party" or similar could be used as an article for what a Labour Party is, and used in the context of "the Australian Labor Party is a Labour Party that etc". Timeshift ( talk) 08:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I know how I have read up here in the talk page that the Australian Labor Party "has no ideology". But what does everyone else think about the sources that have pointed to the Labor Party having an ideology and a political position? I have several sources that I collected from looking back in the article's history. Whenever or not that they're relevant or if they need new sources to indicate it's political position and ideology. I'm quite certain that we need new citations on it's political position and ideology. Here's the code from way back in 2013: |ideology = [[Social democracy]]<ref>{{Cite book |first=Dennis |last=Woodward |title=Social Democratic Parties and Unions in a Globalized World: The Australian Experience |work=Social Democracy After the Cold War |publisher=Athabasca University Press |year=2012 |pages=183–204}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |first1=Rodney |last1=Smith |first2=Ariadne |last2=Vromen |first3=Ian |last3=Cook |title=Keywords in Australian Politics |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2006 |pages=176ff}}</ref> |position = [[Centre-left]]<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Derbyshire |first1=Ian |last2=Derbyshire |first2=Ian |year= |title=Political Systems Of The World |journal= |publisher=Allied Publishers |volume= |issue= |pages=113 |url=http://books.google.com.au/books?id=DIkWJ3psB2gC&pg=PA113&dq=Political+Systems+Of+The+World+liberal+party+of+australia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TTBeU9j-OsSukgXj3YDoAg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Political%20Systems%20Of%20The%20World%20liberal%20party%20of%20australia&f=false}}</ref>
I know it's no longer part of the Socialist International, so it would definitely mean that it's lost it's "Social Democracy" ideology. I've even thought about if the political party has "progressivism" as it's ideology instead, and if so... it would be great if we could find a reliable source that can verify it. It's just something that I feel is missing.— Platinum Lucario ( talk) 05:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Australian Labor Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I really don't understand you people.
It is perfectly clear that the Australian Labor Party is a third way, social democratic, center to center-left party, just like most social democratic parties of Europe. The party has two official fraction, the Labor Unity, which is more centrist and third way social democracy, and Socialist Left which is more democratic socialist and traditional social democratic fraction.
These things are perfectly clear if you read the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IWA1864 ( talk • contribs) 11:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Based on facts that ideology and position of the Australian Labor Party is quite obvious by reading this article, I will make changes to the article. It is perfectly clear that, Labor Unity fraction is more a third way social democracy, similar to the Tony Blair's New Labour, and the Socialist Left fraction is traditional social democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IWA1864 ( talk • contribs) 10:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I mean, the ideology and position of the party is not controversial at all, and if you read the article it is perfectly clear that the party is a third way social democracy, center to center-left party, just like most social democratic parties of Europe. The party has two official factions, the Labor Unity, which is a third way social democracy like Tony Blair's New Labour, and Socialist Left which is more democratic socialist and traditional social democratic fraction.
All this information is written in the articles about the party, on the wiki page Labor Unity in section political views it states that "The Right views itself as the more mainstream and fiscally responsible faction within Labor, the faction is most famous for its support of Third Way policies over Labor's traditional social democratic policies", and on page Labor Left it states "The Labor Left (also known as the Socialist Left and Progressive Left) is an organized social democratic faction of the Australian Labor Party."
I was just looking over the article history. @ Intelligent Mr Toad 2: contributions are somewhat skewed by the fact that he is a Baby Boomer born in the early 1950s. A lot of what he thinks are "not in use in Australia" or "incorrect usage" *are* in fact used widely by younger non-Baby Boomer Australians and the Australia media generally. Mr Toad seems to think that just because he doesn't like something being used from his Baby Boomer perspective, then that makes it illegitimate, even though a cursory look at news.google.com.au would prove him wrong. Paul Benjamin Austin ( talk) 06:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
The party is neoliberalism stated in the website: link Malayedit ( talk) 06:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Australian Labor Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Per my usertalk discussion, the user is repeatedly reverting to an invalid license image - Paul Keating colour 1989 - for over a dozen Paul Keating articles. If absolutely nothing else, won't even follow WP:BRD - status quo during dispute until consensus. Someone please step in, my attempts to educate have gone unheeded. Raised at [ WP:AUP]. Timeshift ( talk) 17:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Per this. Aside from op-eds (even from journalists) being undesirable references, the source actually says that the ALP received "141,000 from Huang affiliates" not the one person as the inserted text stated, and it does not say what the timeframe was when the rest of the para is referring to the single financial year (and 2015-16 at that!). There are much better references available to work up something good on the topic. Nick-D ( talk) 10:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Nick, sorry that I forgot to correct the omission of "associates". However, could you please discuss any issues with the text here, instead of ignoring my reply and reverting my edit again? 1292simon ( talk) 09:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
This same information is also on the Liberal Party of Australia and National Party of Australia articles, if it is removed / added it should be the same across all three, otherwise it appears biased. Ivar the Boneful ( talk) 10:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to reopen this issue because it has been a few years since the last discussion on it, and consensus has since been reached on this issue as it pertains to other parties in Australia and ideologically similar parties in other countries. I would propose Social democracy [1] and Social liberalism. [2]-- Jay942942 ( talk) 14:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
It seems like lots of people are eager to add ideologies to the infobox but no one seems to want to sit down and write a few coherent paragraphs about them and their relative importance in the ALP ... which would be of much more use to the reader. Ivar the Boneful ( talk) 06:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
The Australian Labor Party is definitely a social-democratic party. -- Checco ( talk) 19:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
We must complete it in the infobox!-- 186.59.190.161 ( talk) 02:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
References
Shorten has updated that he will resign as leader when his successor is chosen. However, a Mobile editor keeps deleting him from the infobox. Would somebody explain things to him? GoodDay ( talk) 23:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I believe the Ideologies of the Australian Labor Party should be visible on the sidebar on the article just like all other Political Party articles on Wikipedia, it would be easier.
SymeonHellas ( talk) 20:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
When we literally state is a major centre-left political party in Australia
, I don't understand why Centre-left
as political position in the infobox would be a problem. We either don't insert it and also change to is a major political party in Australia
, which is what I did
here, or we write it in both lead and infobox.--
Davide King (
talk)
06:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
a major centre-left political party in Australiabut then don't reflect that in the infobox. I can understand for the American Democratic and Republican parties as being an exception; and perhaps for the Australian Greens too (although I hope someday all of this could be fixed with academic, peer-review sources that will better discuss their positions), but I don't get it for this. Is it because the party moved to the centre in the 1980s with the Third Way? That's literally what most social democratic parties did, but we still have
Social democracyand
Centre-leftin the infobox without much issues; and I think reliable sources triumph several users' personal opinions, especially in matters of politics when there's always going to be some bias (is there really no reliable sources that agree with a centre-left consensus?). It's also very American/Anglo-centric to say that
in most other countries in the world the Liberal Party is a left-wing party. As far as I know, whether simply following liberalism or calling itself the Liberal Party, the left-leaning liberal parties are at best centrist to centre-left (social liberal) and most of them are centre-right (conservative liberalism) parties.
[S]o alas it doesn't really get us anywhere closer to an actual general consensus outcome on what to do with these situations, so what's the issue? Is there users who say it's centrist and others who say it's a left-wing, rather than centre-left? A quick research on what reliable sources say should stabily that, whether we personally agree with it or not.-- Davide King ( talk) 14:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
a major centre-left political party in Australiabut then don't reflect that in the infobox. Maybe we could add the two factions in the infobox too like we do for the American Democratic and Republican parties. I think it's very needed an Ideology section that better discusses all this (especially the party reforms since the 1980s, its relation with neoliberalism, how it was the first New Labour, social liberalism, etc.) but there shouldn't be really any controversy with Social demcoracy and Democratic socialism which is what we have for pretty much every like-minded party. We could put a note to not add any unreferenced ideology in the infobox and simply revert any edit that does that; I feel not putting anything in the infobox is a win for them and a loss for Wikipedia. -- Davide King ( talk) 14:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
they support a structural reorganisation of the Australian economy on the basis of worker ownershipthough; and social democracy is a socialist ideology. In other words,
the hundreds of political parties around the world that are routinely described as socialist fail your purity testas argued here and here.-- Davide King ( talk) 09:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
[the ALP] is a major centre-left political party in Australia, so either we delete both or we keep both. As far as I know, there isn't so much controversy as with the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States which includes the whole spectrum, although I would be interested in reading what academic, peer-review sources say about it, if any.-- Davide King ( talk) 09:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Was wondering how we should approach the issue of the Country Labor Party. In NSW, there are two separate Labor Parties which run in elections in both state and federal. [1] Country Labor is financially and politically independent from the NSW Labor Branch (but is still under the 'Australian Labor Party' federally [2]). [3] However, on pages such as this and the state election results, they're treated as the same. Should we separate the Country Labor Party from NSW Labor? Catiline52 ( talk) 03:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
https://www.alp.org.au/media/1574/alp_national_constitution.pdf From the ALP constitution: "The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields." end of story, surely?
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Australian Labor Party (South Australian Branch)... should it be written as Labor or more obvious such as SA Labor et al? Request for comments, thanks. Timeshift ( talk) 02:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
If the Australian Labor Party is described as democratic socialist in the parties own constitution and our article also uses the same descriptor, should the info box reflect this also? Bacondrum ( talk) 01:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
References
I changed the hidden comment to be shorter and in all capital letters here. This was reverted. I thought this was a rather obvious change to make. Can I get anyone here to briefly express they support this? Thanks. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 00:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)