Jump to content

Talk:Australian Democrats

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elswyth (talk | contribs) at 07:54, 8 April 2019 (→Australian Democrats status). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconPolitics: Political parties B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Untitled

Previous discussions: Archive 1 Archive 2

WikiProject iconAustralia: Politics B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconAustralian Democrats is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Mid-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Time to end use of WP as dispute battleground?

The shilly-shallying of two purported AD parties to establish their respective websites and officebearers under WP endorsement has tested our patience for over two years since Brian Greig walked out, and the latest competing edits can be seen here and here. It is not our business to go on hosting such a dispute when we can simply decide which of these two is the real party--and dispense with the bogus one. According to the official AEC registrar, the real party's correspondence address is in South Australia, and that is the only party that should be recognised in WP until such time as there is a change in the official public record. Therefore, take notice that I intend to delete links to the website of the unrecognised group in seven days' time unless valid reasons are presented to the contrary. I have no personal POV in this matter, having resigned from the party in 1993 when it was a completely different organisation. Bjenks (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might be good to add material to the article about the internal (and obviously now external) manoeuvring that has led to the present divided situation. Recent history about the party is very thin in the article. Anything we add would, of course, require excellent sourcing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedically, the infighting should be ignored as trivia. The recent history is naturally "thin" because there has been little or no public presence. Imho, a great deal of the "Electoral fortunes" content should now be pruned and replaced by one or two paragraphs covering the Kernot-Lees period and the GST hubris, followed by a short exposition of the subsequent electoral rejection and demise. To date, I've disqualified myself from this because of my past POV issues. If no other editor is interested in taking it on, I would see that as another reasonable signal to prune the whole content into a more digestible article. Bjenks (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Australian Democrats. 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 19:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Friends:

The Wikipedia article is about the Australian Democrats, that is, the political party of that name. The opening paragraph alleges that the Democrats are "extinct". Not sure about that exact word - but let's put that to one side for the moment. If the Democrats are extinct, why is there a side box with the name of a President and Secretary? And indeed with a link to a current website?

AustralianEditor83 (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply] 

: <Comment : I have been a member since last century and can say that the organisation has changed over the years but it is the same organisation and this is its history. Why would you delete current references that are part of the organisation ? Registration of political parties is to do with government registers not Wikipedia, so if its registered or not does not make it extinct or another organisation>

Further to above comment, my suggestion is to remove the side box. Please comment here if you think this this is problematic. AustralianEditor83 (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC) <Comment[reply]

The only point of that action would be to mask the problem by blanking info about the deregistered party's current nature. The term 'extinct' cannot apply until all life has ceased. Even then, as in the case of the DLP, a party can be brought back to life. To my mind, as per the Democratic Labor Party (historical), we must now have separate articles for the defunct Australian Democrats (historical) and the present impotent yet active organisation. The two deserve to be wikilinked because of the apparent partial continuity of membership and policy ideals.Bjenks (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The current AD is non-notable though. No sources, no registration - it may as well be five dudes in a shed. Should they become notable, as in the case of the revived DLP, then that is a possibility. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, notability is a problem for the non-parliamentary new brigade. However, a reading of their most recent journal shows there is still a thread of continuity, provided mainly by the support of 12-year Senate leader Lyn Allison (Vic) on p. 7. However, as they say, yesterday's rooster is today's feather duster. I note, too, that most energy is coming from SA and Victoria, the two state divisions which pushed for expulsions and suspensions of members they disagreed with--stamping out the foundation principles of democratic membership as extolled by Sir Mark Oliphant. (I found it ironic to see Sir Mark's words quoted in the journal.) I suggest, however, that continuity alone is a slender ground for notability. I'm for applying a cut-off (at 2008) of the historical Australian Democrats. The current organisation (which is NOT yet dead) could be mentioned either in a final section/paragraph or given a brief separate article with strict limitations according to notability and verifiability. Again I (alone in this forum) declare a potential conflict of interest as a former AD member. Bjenks (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with much of what BJenks has to say. However a question: does anyone have a reliable and independent source to support the assertion that D.Churchill and R.Howe are currently president and secretary, as is asserted by this Wikipedia article? I know there are Australian Electoral Commission documents. I don't think these don't actually assert that the above persons previously held these offices, but it can be inferred from the documents. However these AEC documents are now dated, and in any case these documents refer to the former registered political party entity, which no longer exists. There is also the Australian-hyphenated-Democrats website, but Wikipedia (see W:RS) cautions against relying on self-published sources, especially those of a self-serving nature. Thus my question. AustralianEditor83 (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence for any reliable source indicating that D.Churchill and R.Howe are indeed currently president and secretary, I propose to delete this in another 48 hours, in accordance with WP:RS. In the meantime, if anyone does become aware of any reliable source, please indicate here on this talk page. AustralianEditor83 (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Australian Democrats. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Australian Democrats. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed party "merger"

It is now quite clear that the "Australian Democrats" has proven unsustainable despite attempts to retain the name as an electoral foundation. The proposed merger with the "Country Minded" microparty will involve a new constitution and thus the establishment of a different party, even if the AD name is applied to it. I submit that for WP purposes, any purported continuation will require a new article, as was done to differentiate the Democratic Labor Party (historical) from the Democratic Labour Party (Australia). The present article will then be re-edited to remove a great volume of inappropriate trivia, as previously discussed on this page. Bjenks (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that makes sense. I think there should be one section succinctly documenting the various "Democrats" drama post-2007 but the whole history section needs a rewrite so it doesn't focus on trivia anyway. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bjenks:, @The Drover's Wife:, The Democrats were finished as a serious party in 2007. Everything since then has been the AD version of The People's Front of Judea/Judean People's Front. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 11:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the status of the actual organisation that is/was the Democrats? Has the party ever actually been dissolved? Obviously it was deregistered, but if there's a group of people still operating under the original constitution I don't think it would be correct for us to just decide that the party no longer exists. Deregistration ≠ not existing. Are there any sources (reliable or otherwise) that talk about the party's history post-2008, i.e. the competing factions that are mentioned in the article? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia's treatment of the DLP is a bad example to follow. No other sources – media outlets, the parliamentary website – claim that the pre-1978 and post-1978 DLP are separate entities. The Democratic Labour Party (Australia) article states that the party was founded in 1955, and also states "The Australian Electoral Commission considers the current DLP to be legally the same as the earlier DLP". Wikipedia should be following reliable sources not ignoring them ... there should be a single DLP article covering the entirety of the party's history. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivar the Boneful:, @Bjenks:, @The Drover's Wife:, My grandfather sided with the DLP in the 1955 Split, The Sandringham News called him "Victoria's Chifley". He stood twice for the DLP in Flinders and in 1961 helped save the Menzies Government with his preferences. When the DLP 1978 national conference passed a motion of dissolution, he returned to the ALP. The AEC being dingbats doesn't mean we should treat the Continuity DLP as if it were the original one and likewise the little factional grouplets claiming to be the heirs to the pre-2008 party should not be lumped in with the parliamentary Australian Democrats. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The AEC, the Australian Parliamentary Library, election databases, election reference works, the ABC, other major media outlets, etc., consider them to be the same party. The APL's history of the DLP states "In Victoria, the vote passed by a few votes and 14 voters were found to be concurrently members of other political parties. Three-quarters of the Victorian branch’s executive rejected the vote and continued the party in that state." We need to be following what actual sources not ignoring them based on our own opinions of whether a party is legitimate or not. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the Democrats talk page is the place to be having this discussion - it's not the first time that it's been proposed at the DLP talk page, and it always fails not for opposition but for complete lack of interest, so perhaps better had there. As for the Democrats, there has been some newspaper coverage of the various factions but I'm not sure they could be said to still be operating under the original constitution given the nature of some of the struggles. I have no problem with documenting it here (given very limited weight amidst the broader history of the party) as some kind of "aftermath"-type section, and then in the unlikely event some kind of continuity-Democrat party actually gets re-registered or wins a seat we can cross that bridge when we get to it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with that approach. @Ivar the Boneful:—The ASC, AEC and other authorities are faced with dealing with an archived/once-registered "party name", whose successors have contrived not to change for that very reason. Like the DLP successors (who actually changed the spelling of the former name) they are cashing in on the name to pursue electoral hopes, but lack the notability of significant parliamentary status. In Wikipedia, we are surely not obliged to keep transferring the past notability to whatever purported successors take on the name. Bjenks (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We are obliged to follow reliable sources not users' personal opinions. So you're arguing that the DLP candidates who ran at the 1976 Victorian state election and then again in 1979 were in fact members of two distinct political parties? It's ludicrous and totally contrary to media reporting, reference works, and common sense. Are there any other sources that take Wikipedia's path of declaring them to be separate parties? I haven't found any. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you guys having an involved argument about the DLP article on the Democrats talk page? The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As this merged party is being registered under the AEC, once it is registered, should we create a separate page? Catiline52 (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the best way to go. And then we can reinstate the infobox on the basis that this refers to the historical party. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article, when it becomes Australian Democrats (historical) should draw a line at 2008, as the "Judean Peoples' Front" infighting of the non-parliamentary brigade afterwards isn't really notable or interesting. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it needs some kind of "aftermath" section to explain what happened after the show was over, but agree that the article as a whole really needs to be refocused on when it was an actual party. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why 2008 specifically? The last elected member resigned in 2009, and the party didn't deregister until 2015. Catiline52 (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's probably reasonable to put the cutoff for this article at 2015 and use the date of deregistration, but it desperately needs all the post-2009 stuff to get constrained into one smallish section with appropriate weight rather than defining the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unless sources actually refer to them as separate parties rather than a revival, then they should both be in this article. Creating a new article would be original research. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As i think The Drover's Wife would agree, these "revival Democrats' are really just Countryminded using a (relatively) known name to try to win support for their own beliefs. "New lick of paint, same old car". Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Paul and I edit conflicted. The point is that sources aren't clear: there are an awful lot of sources discussing the Democrats in the context of being defunct, and then occasionally the regional newspapers pick up a press release from a handful of people claiming to be reactivating the Democrats, much like Clive Palmer claims to be reactivating the original UAP but without the attention given to it. Which Wikipedia takes notice of is an editorial decision, and not an explicitly clear-cut one either way. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@The Drover's Wife:, @Bjenks:. Wikipedia should be extremely cautious about connecting the Australian Democrats when it was a serious parliamentary party (i.e. before it lost all its Federal Senate seats) with the Monty Python's Life of Brian-esque "Judean Peoples' Front"/"Peoples' Front of Judea" infighting and tiny grouplets in the aftermath. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Considering there is conflict over the proposed merged Australian Democrats and the un-merged Australian Democrats of Queensland, I feel that there is sufficient evidence that the merger has created a new party that should be given a new article and treated similarly to any other party merger. Catiline52 (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Ivar the Boneful is, of course, right in returning us to the principle of reliable sources, which is why our first step must be to establish the integrity of the article's present content, much of which is not well verified, and/or has been rendered trivial by the passage of time. Bjenks (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One Nation/ 1998 federal election

As seen on our page for the 1998 Australian federal election, One Nation got the largest share of the vote of all the minor parties that year, which means that they were the largest minor party in that election. That's certainly what Psephos said on his site. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of those statements doesn't necessarily follow from the other. One Nation were not the largest minor party in parliament following the election, or in the amount of MPs elected at that election - the Democrats were, as they were across the entire stated time period. The sentence talks about the "largest minor party", not the minor party with the largest vote. That said, I don't object to a caveat at the end of that sentence along the lines of "...though One Nation polled more votes in 1998" to remove any confusion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Democrats status

Hi everyone, I wrote here a while ago asking why my edits were removed when they contained current references. It was deleted. I added the references and current news back and it has been undone. To the bet of my knowledge the Australian Democrats are a current political party who were deregistered in 2016 and are currently seeking re-registration with the AEC. If this is not the case I'm happy to talk about it but I can't see any evidence that it isn't. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elswyth (talk • contribs) 07:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Life of Brian-esque multiple little factions, each claiming to be the "real" Australian Democrats, are a very different beast to the serious 1977-2009 parliamentary party. It is a matter of WP:UNDUE. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've included references from multiple news articles about the current Australian Democrats attempts to be re-registered with the AEC as a continuation of the 1977-2009 party. As this is verifiable I'm not sure why you are deleting this. I can't see any evidence the Australian Democrats are not a current unregistered political party with active members who are seeking reregistration currently. Elswyth (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_Democrats&oldid=891486471"