Talk:Australian Labor Party/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Attempts to categorise party ideology

I have twice deleted the assertion that the Labor party's "ideology" is "Third Way." There is no Labor platform or policy document that uses this expression - not surprisingly, since it is a discredited cliche from the Tony Blair era. Assigning it to the ALP is no more than someone's opinion, and thus POV, OR and various other Wikipedia thoughtcrimes. Kevin Rudd may well have used the term in a speech but that doesn't make it party policy. Labor is defined in its Constitution as a democratic socialist party, and that is the only ideological descriptor which can legitimately be used in an infobox (although the text of the article correctly makes clear that this is widely acknowledged to be an obselete statement).

More broadly, as the posts above illustrate, it is almost impossible to assign one- or two-word "ideologies" to most modern parties. I would delete all references to "ideology" from party infoboxes unless such a descriptor is used by the party itself in its title or policy documents. But in this case I will only insist on deleting "Third Way," which is clearly false. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and China is run by a communist party. Wait, I see rudimentary free markets! Wiki doesnt use these boxes solely for what the official party platform is, that has never been the criteria for inclusion. Labor on wiki has had democratic socialism, social democracy, and third way for a long time, and it's backed up by multiple primary and secondary WP:RS. I understand you feel third way doesn't belong, but that doesn't mean that other people agree... Timeshift (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

First, spare me your silly sarcasm. Second, show me these "multiple primary and secondary" sources. There's none given in the article. The expression "third way" appears twice without any attribution, and once in a speech made by Rudd as a Labor backbencher. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty much with Intelligent Mr Toad here. Third way would certainly need strong references. And again, my view is that trying to put simplistic descriptors of unofficial policy positions in Infoboxes is very artificial. Actually, I don't like Infoboxes much at all, largely because they attempt to drastically simplify often very complex situations. HiLo48 (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Before I start listing reference after reference, I think i'll do the sane thing and ask what sorts of references would be accepted, and what would be tossed aside and classed as irrelevant. Do speeches by Labor MPs and Labor leaders count? Do news articles by News Ltd and Fairfax media count? Would we keep it strictly to news articles or would opinion pieces coun too? It's pretty easy to say that the party platform doesn't say it so therefore it shouldn't be there, and that it is too simplistic, but what is even more simplistic is to see what Hawke/Keating/Rudd/Gillard have implemented through parliament, and call it democratic socialism/social democracy - it beggars belief. To have simply democratic socialism/social democracy is far more misleading than democratic socialism/social democracy/third way. Finally, I use sarcasm because it's a pretty good Simpsons line. How can the Chinese government be communist when they have pseudo free markets? Can I ask, will everyone rush over to Communist Party of China and start removing from "Communism,Marxism–Leninism, Maoism, Deng Xiaoping Theory, Three Represents, Scientific Development Concept, and Market socialism" and "left wing to far left" simply because it isn't in the party's official party platform? I mean c'mon, i've seen figleaves before, but the rationale behind this has to take the cake. Timeshift (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, use some of those references to update the article. Things like that shouldn't appear in the Infobox without well sourced mentions in the text. "Third way" appears three times in the article, once with a broken link, once unsourced, and once with a link to the abovementioned Rudd speech. So we really only have Rudd's speech for this policy position at this stage. If there are more good sources for it, put 'em in the article. Give me a couple of good ones and I could be a happy camper. HiLo48 (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

An infobox is supposed to be a place for simple statements of fact. "Leader: Julia Gillard." But a party's "ideology" is not a simple matter of fact, it's a matter of opinion. Who gets to decide what Labor's "ideology" is? Timeshift's view is that anyone can decide this - News Ltd, himself, backbench MPs. I dispute this. My view is that if Labor says in its constitution that it is a democratic socialist party, that is what must go in the infobox (or else delete the "ideology" line altogether, which is actually my preference). If there are sources disputing the truth of this description, they should be cited in the body of the article. So if Timeshift has sources asserting that Labor is not a democratic socialist party, but rather a "Third Way" party, he is free to cite them at an appropriate place in the text. He is not entitled to insert his opinions in the infobox as though they were facts. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Not only have you failed to reply to any points i've made, you've also claimed i've said things that I haven't. When did I say I have sources saying Labor is not a democratic socialist party? I never said this. Please respond to my previous post. I'm not going to start gathering sources from Labor MPs/leaders and News Ltd/Fairfax unless I know this will get me somewhere. Going by the lack of a reply to my post above, it seems no amount of references would satisfy. Please re-read my post above and reply to that. If you accept it like HiLo appears to, then I will go ahead and gather references. Please advise. Timeshift (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, this is really very simple. The basic rule of Wikipedia is that any assertion of fact must be referenced. So if you want this article to assert as a fact that Labor's ideology is "Third Way," you must produce a reputable source which shows this to be a fact, and not just someone's opinion. Examples of an appropriate source would be the party's platform or constitution, or a statement by the party's leader. If you can't do so within a reasonable time, the assertion must be deleted. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you have just justified my position. What you propose is an exception to the rule - to accept primary souces over secondary sources as WP:RS. Enjoy :) Timeshift (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You produce your sources, and then we can discuss their validity. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

He's right Timeshift. As I said above, "Third way" is very poorly sourced at present. One link to one speech by a past leader. (Does it even reflect current policy?) If you have better sources, it would add to the article. Please dig 'em up. HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not doubting he's right. I've been away for the weekend, you know me, i'm a 5-year plus editor and always happy to back up what I say. But before I do start manipulating various search engines (and it does take time to use the right search strings): is this what it boils down to, or is it simply a way to buy time before Mr Toad begins the whole "thats a source but not a WP:RS" line of questioning? I asked above what sort of sources would be accepted - i'm still waiting on a reply. Qualify which ones are deemed acceptable and i'll gather. Otherwise it's just an exercise in futility. Timeshift (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

They must be sources which demonstrate as a fact (as opposed to someone's opinion) that the ALP has an ideological position called "Third Way". I've already given you my opinion of what kind of sources would substantiate that assertion. My view is that there is no source that could outweigh the party's own assertion in its constitution about what its ideological position is, but I'm willing to wait a few days and see what sources you have. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I will do the required searching and gathering, but remember, every article or speech is written by a person. When you say "as a fact", you're simply trying to allow primary soucrs and disallow secondary sources, considering what an ideological position is - an interpretation. Timeshift (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

As I've pointed out, we only have one source at present, a speech by Rudd. Whether that be a primary or secondary source, it's not enough. HiLo48 (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will gather the citations. Timeshift (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"The Third Way is controversial because some in the Australian Labor Party (ALP) argue, with some justification, that the ALP invented it." "The ALP leadership, past and present, has argued that the policies that the Hawke-Keating Labor Government of 1983-96 provided the basis of Tony Blair’s New Labour platform in the UK in 1997." "Keating and others in Australian Labor circles argue that Australia provided Blair with the Third Way" http://www.actu.org.au/Images/Dynamic/oldsite/public/papers/thglobal/thglobal.doc

Battin, T., 'Laborism, the Australian Labor Party and the Third Way', in Paul Boreham, Geoffrey Stokes, and Richard Hall (eds), The Politics of Australian Society: Political Issues for the New Century Second Edition (Melbourne: Addison Wesley Longman 2000). http://www.une.edu.au/staff/tbattin.php

"From the mid 1990s, attempts to redefine Labor Party values in terms of democratic socialism have produced theories of a 'third way'." http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2001-02/02rn28.htm

"Many people laid claim to being the progenitors of the Third Way, including Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, who did their best to disavow the nation-building, redistributive legacy of Ben Chifley's postwar Labor government and the more independent foreign policy of Gough Whitlam." http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/third-way-becomes-the-empty-way/2008/08/20/1218911823678.html

"... seemed to fit in well into Third Way politics of UK prime minister Tony Blair and US president Clinton, but also of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating in Australia, Jean Chretien in Canada, and Gerhard Schroder's 'Neue Mitte' in Germany" http://books.google.com.au/books?id=XjdXj24B2rEC&lpg=PA44&ots=uENvojkhT8&dq=%22bob%20hawke%22%20%22tony%20blair%22%20%22third%20way%22&pg=PA44#v=onepage&q=%22bob%20hawke%22%20%22tony%20blair%22%20%22third%20way%22&f=false

It's only a quick 10 minute attempt, but i'll be better off gauging the level of citation required first before spending more time, if needed. Comments please. Timeshift (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

So, as I expected, you've produced a collection of commentary by various people arguing that the policy positions which during the Blair period in Britain were called "the third way" (between socialism and Thatcherism) were actually invented by the ALP during the Hawke-Keating period. That's quite possibly the case, and this should be noted at some appropriate place in the article. What you have not done is produce any source which shows as a fact that the ALP, in 2012, has (owns, is in possession of) an ideology (a formal set of political ideas) called (designated, known by the name of) "Third Way". And that's not surprising, because no such source exists. No such source exists because in fact the ALP does not have an ideology called Third Way, and never has had. The only formal statement of the ALP's ideological position is its constitution, which says it is a democratic socialist party. Now you can argue that in fact it is not a democratic socialist party, and I will agree with you. In practice is a pragmatic centrist party, with both a socialist wing and a Catholic social conservative wing. All of that can and should be canvassed in the article. But that's not the point at issue. The point at issue is the infobox, which states as a bald fact that the ALP has an ideology called Third Way. That is plainly factually false. You've had a fortnight to demonstrate that this statement is true, and you can't, because it isn't. I will wait a while to see if anyone else has any comments to make, and then I will delete this false statement. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I asked what sort of references you'd find acceptable, and why I didn't bother looking for more... looks like I was completely justified. As far as you're concerned, the only ideologies you find acceptable are those that the party itself deems it officially is. That is not how the infobox works, as stated above. As the inclusion of the third way is the status quo on this article, I won't hesitate to defend it should it be removed. So perhaps you should stop chest beating and say you will delete it, because it won't get this discussion anywhere. Timeshift (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The only source among those new ones that says anything about Labor post Hawke/Keating is the Parliamentary Library one, and it's not clear who is providing this name of "third way". Obviously the party now is quite post Hawke/Keating, which makes your other new sources unhelpful. In fact it could be argued that labelling the Hawke/Keating years as third way, as those other sources do, means that what we have now is not third way. It leaves us with one cryptic new source. (Plus the existing Rudd speech link, but again, he ain't in charge or in a position to define policy any more.) I'm not convinced we have good sourcing there. HiLo48 (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Whom are you looking for a source from precisely? Is Rudd/Hawke/Keating and others including commentators (Latham too) not enough? I repeat, official party documents is not the criteria for inclusion. If it was, parties around the world like Communist Party of China would need a big overhaul. What precisely is the issue? How would *you* best describe Labor? "Third Way" and other ideological names may not be perfect, but they never are. They are supposed to provide an approximation. Political parties on wikipedia all around the world have their ideologies as what they are, not what their official party documents say they are. If not Third Way, what then? To have soc dem/dem soc only is horribly wrong and uninformative and completely misguides to readers what sort of policies modern Labor pursues, and is not done on other government party articles on wikipedia. I'm very happy to compromise if a compromise ideological term could be reached, but considering the above, I don't think anyone could give an alternative. To argue for purely soc dem/dem soc, unfortunately, is to argue for misleading the reader. Timeshift (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

One problem with political parties is that their ideologies change. In fact, I reckon I could find quite a few sources saying that today's Labor Party has completely abandoned ideology for "Whatever it takes to beat Tony Abbott". That's why Julia is there rather than Kevin. As I said above, Hawke, Keating and maybe Latham were aiming for a third way, at least partly, but if Gillard hasn't mentioned it, it's not current policy. That absence of clear ideology means we must be very careful saying anything formal in the Infobox or in categorization.

You could find those sources, but they wouldn't be coherant ones. Labor's policy settings have hardly changed since Abbott came to power. We don't need current policy to be of a Third Way position, i've already stated this above, and regardless... it's a primary source! We do not need to be careful if the rest of the pages don't as long as it's citable across multiple reliables. Timeshift (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be misleading to list a historical ideology without qualification. Almost all your sources are about the Hawke/Keating days. That's goes under "History", not a description of the party today. HiLo48 (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In practical terms, democratic socialism and social democracy are historical - not Third Way. Labor's general economic stance since Hawke has invariably been of the Third Way flavour as opposed to socialism and social democracy. Shouldn't we call a spade a spade? It would be madness to describe this party as only what it states it is. Again, look at all the government party articles around the world. Timeshift (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Timeshift, do you have no grasp at all of the difference between a fact and an opinion? Or of Wikipedia's policy on Original Research? You have stated quite openly that you won't accept listing the ALP's ideology as being what the party's constitution says it is, because you don't think it's an accurate description. As I've said, I agree that it's not. But that doesn't mean that you can substitute your opinion, or anyone else's opinion of what the ALP's current ideological position actually is. That's Original Research, and it's not allowed. What matters at Wikipedia is not what it true, but what can be verified, and your assertion that the ALP has an ideology called Third Way cannot be verified. It's simply an opinion. You ask what then should appear in the infobox under "ideology". My answer is nothing. The ideology of most political parties cannot be summarised in one or two words, and that is particularly true of an essentially non-ideological party like the ALP. The "ideology" line in the infobox should be deleted and the question of what the ALP's actual political position is should be discussed in the body of the article. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That proposal fits perfectly with my notion that Infoboxes are fundamentally evil. They force complex pieces of information to be summarised in one or a handful of words. Not encyclopaedic at all. HiLo48 (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes are fine for providing simple and uncontroversial statements of fact. But they cannot be used for such subjective and controversial subjects as what a party's "ideology" is. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Things like name, DOB, party membership, official title are fine. Anything involving opinion or any complexity at all needs to be just in the article itself, with full details. HiLo48 (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest actually reading what original research is. If it's the opinion of multiple reliable source commentators as well as Hawke/Keating/Latham/Rudd, with no leaders reputing Third Way as an ideology, it's not original research. If other government party wikipedia articles around the world do it, so can we. To stick with official party ideology is rediculous, other government party articles don't follow this bizarre and original researched formula. I'm still awaiting a compromise. I guess we'll have to stick with the status quo until then, or until more editors give their say. Timeshift (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, since no-one else has offered any opinions, and since you're outvoted two to one, and since you have not produced any factual evidence that Labor has an ideology called "Third Way," I am again deleting the line from the infobox. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Two to one is not consensus, nor is consensus a simple majority. Reverted to status quo. Timeshift (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Date of foundation

Both the infobox and the text say Labor was founded in 1891. But this article is about the Australian Labor Party, which was founded in 1901. There was no such political entity as Australia in 1891: what were founded in 1891 were colonial Labour parties in NSW and Queensland. This distinction can be explained in the text, but not in an infobox. I therefore think the infobox needs to be changed to say 1901, and the point about the colonial forerunners of the ALP explained in the text. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, Ziktor, now you have to produce a reference for your apparent belief that the Australian Labor Party (as opposed to NSW amd Qld labour parties) was founded in 1891. Good luck with that. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ideology

Someone has added "Social Liberalism" to the list of supposed Labor "ideologies." This section of the infobox is just a standing invitation for people to add their unsourced opinions. The fact is that Labor is not an ideological party, and it doesn't have an ideology, official or unofficial. So I've deleted the section altogether. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, except Labor does have an official ideology. The party's constitution clearly states it is "democratic socialist", whatever that means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.6.6 (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and I would think that a party's official ideology in its constitution should be listed under "ideology" in the infobox.Moonboy54 (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I simply cannot understand how Labor party is not defined as 'Social Democratic' party on this article. Your statement that 'the fact is that Labor is not an ideological party, and it doesn't have an ideology, official or unofficial' is fundamentally wrong. the National Platform, as clear as can it can possibly be, states SIX times though out the manifesto that the ALP is, at its core, a social democratic party. For example, under the heading 'Labor Values' it states 'Labor is a social democratic party and believes there is a positive and essential role for government in securing economic and environmental wellbeing'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtzuc (talk • contribs) 05:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Labor governments

This whole new section on Labor governments is totally unreferenced and will not survive any serious challenge. I'm not going to delete it, but someone probably will soon. Also, what about Scullin? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I've taken the referenced portions from each PM's article. Feel free to add each reference if you wish. It's certainly not deleteable when it's already referenced in said PM articles. I've skipped Scullin for reasons for can observe in his article's lead. I've skipped others not listed for reasons I would think are obvious. It's not meant to be a list of each PM, it's designed to show how the ALP overall has reformed Australian politics, the economy, and society. Timeshift (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe you'll get away with that, but I doubt it. Your heading "Reformist governments" is an opinion - Liberals would argue that Howard's government was a reformist government. You're just writing your political opinions as though they were facts, as you always do. Also, this article is already quite long and your material probably belongs better in separate articles about each government rather than here. This history of the Curtin government is not the same as the history of the ALP. But since I know you are not amenable to argument and since I have neither the time nor the inclination for another protacted war with you, I'll leave all this for someone else to deal with. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm just giving the facts, and this article is about the ALP, not Howard. Try utilising the ref to see Acts by year since the inception of federal parliament. I've noticed that the Liberal Party wiki article has had some updates lately, and i've long thought that the ALP article just goes on and on. I think i've done some good work. If you disagree, i'm not fussed. As for "as you always do", I don't appreciate that at all, please don't start the personal attack route. I would hope we're both here for article improvement. Timeshift (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Table of election results

I've deleted this. It belongs in an article about Australian electoral history, not here. It's also unreferenced apart from the opinion polls. Also, calculating 2-party votes before 1984, a time when not all preferences were distributed, can only be conjectural, and is thus original research. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It is peer reviewed academia, so it is a WP:RS. It's not WP:OR. Also, it is referenced, as is the new section i've been creating. Each link is the reference to the article which contains said references, this is a common practise on wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Whose research? Where is this research referenced? It wasn't referenced at the table I deleted. In any case, a 2-party vote figure from before 1984 can only ever be an estimate, and this must be stated. But whether it's referenced or not, the table doesn't belong at this article. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine, leave the table out. But the 1937, 1940, 1943, and 1946 election articles have a WP:RS ref of TPPs since 1937. And the TPP article states that preferences have only been fully distributed in all seats since the 1983 election. Timeshift (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Facts and opinions

"Labor has always been the party of reformism in Australia." Now, I'm an ALP member and I agree with this opinion, but it is only an opinion, and cannot stand as an unreferenced statement of fact in an encyclopaedia. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Take your pick. In addition, i've given you the Act list by year link multiple times, it's used as a ref, and on PM pages there are other refs stating how the 1910-13 effort was outdone by the 1946-49 effort. ALP member, no vested interests then. I'm really not sure why you can't spend spend less time criticising me and more time improving the article? Timeshift (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't find any coverage in that search result that's written by an independent source. Most of them are quoting John Faulkner.  -- Lear's Fool 11:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? Keep trying. I think the Act link alone is sufficient myself. Perhaps a minor wording tweak would help? What is the issue, the word "always"? Timeshift (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Changed to "Labor has a comprehensive history of reformism in Australia"? Timeshift (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Have a look through the guidelines on reliable sources and tell me where it says it's okay to add a line like that and cite either partisan sources, primary sources or the "general vibe" of other articles. This small change does not address the concerns expressed here, nor does this new search result contain a higher quality of candidate sources. I appreciate you've put a lot of good work into this article recently, but you don't think it's inconceivable that you've editorialised with that particular line?  -- Lear's Fool 03:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Act website doesn't count? Can someone tell me precisely which bit is over the line, why they don't think there's any WP:RS they consider to be RS even though they know the statement is true, and can they propose any solutions? This is all very odd. Timeshift (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Where does the act website say that the ALP is historically Australia's party of reform the party of reformism in Australia?  -- Lear's Fool 07:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

By way of the statistical factual number of Acts by year that the Act website provides. The 1910-13 period was a time of reform unmatched until the 1940s, and this backed up by this. Then there's Whitlam and the rest. We don't compile an encyclopedia with sentences of copyrighted material, we compile and back it up with refs. I think i've done that to be able to say "Labor has a comprehensive history of reformism in Australia". Timeshift (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

So to answer my question, it doesn't say that in the source. Instead, you want to synthesise the general vibe of a bunch of primary sources (the acts themselves), and then add your own interpretation of that synthesis to the article because you can't see how anyone could disagree. Furthermore, you believe that's how an encyclopaedia is written. Am I getting this right?  -- Lear's Fool 22:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of interest Timeshift, is that your line that says Rudd's "popularity dwindled"? If so, I'm amazed as there was a time when you were prepared to engage in colossal edit warring to deny the merest hint of any such thing on Wikipedia! Whilst it's good that somebody has moved to put some historical content into this article and I think in the end these additions will lead to improvement, there are still many omissions here. For the record, and after reading your user page blog, can I ask if you work for a political party? Observoz (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No it's not my line, it was part of a copy/paste. Newspoll had Rudd Labor above 50% 2PP when he was removed, but it was cloud 9 at the start, so the higher one rises, the higher one falls. But I digress. No I do not work for any political party. I'm a non-active trade union member, that's my biggest foray in to politics. Why do you ask? Timeshift (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Where did you copy and paste it from?  -- Lear's Fool 23:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd. I must have paraphrased. I was doing a lot of cutting and editting. Timeshift (talk) 07:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Now we have a headline "Notable Labor governments". Were the Hughes and Scullin Labor governments not notable? Hughes was PM during World War I, Scullin during the Depression. Both presided over disastrous splits in the Labor Party. Were these not notable events? Of course they were - they just don't fit Timeshift's agenda, which is to write eulogistic sections about federal Labor governments. As I said above, I'm an ALP member and I agree with most of what Timeshift's material says. But it isn't encyclopaedic. Even it was, it doesn't belong in this article, which is about the ALP as a party, not a history of everything good which every Labor government has ever done. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. The ALP article is the perfect place to lay out such reforms, and is utterly encyclopedic. Hughes and Scullin are talked about all over the article. One was a WW1 PM who left Labor after a year with practically no noteable reforms, the other was a Great Depression PM who didn't have any chance of passing reforms through the conservative-controlled Senate. What's the point of fillers in this section? As for the heading change, I agree with you. One thing I find ironic is that nobody is actually bringing any bits of the text up that they have concerns with, and constructive ways to fix them. Timeshift (talk) 07:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"The Fisher government of 1910-13 represented the culmination of Labor's involvement in politics; it was a period of reform unmatched in the Commonwealth until the 1940s."anu.edu.au. Yes, I referred to this earlier, but I thought it was worth quoting. I suppose if it has to get to it, I could simply put the sentence above in at the start of the section instead. I tried to find a section where I believe it said more clearly "don't request cites for the point of it" but this is the best I can find. Is the claim doubtful? No. There are far more controversial things to get all bent up over on wikipedia than an article saying "Labor has a comprehensive history of reformism in Australia". Timeshift (talk) 07:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I suspect, Mr Toad, that you are right about Timeshift's agenda, but I think, with the adapted title "notable" instead of "reformist" we can build on his structure to create a more comprehensive history. Obviously the ALP has often been reformist, but it has also often been obstructionist - whether it was blocking multiracial immigration in its early decades, or its opposition to the GST in the 1990s and 2000s, or Rudd/Gillard's re-regulation of the workplace to pre-Keating standards. So rather than deleting all the material (which is useful to the extent that it includes legislation passed by Labor) let's just balance it up with some of Labor's method (eg massive blowout of the budget by Whitlam) and other aspects of Labor's record - to avoid, as you put it, "eulogising" the party.Observoz (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

What agenda? WP:AGF. Timeshift (talk) 06:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Timeshift, we're all appreciative of the work you've done in general and in this specific instance, but there are clearly neutrality issues with the sections you've added. All we're asking is that you take extra care in making sure that your strong political beliefs stay (at most) on your userpage and out of articles.  -- Lear's Fool 06:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

My 5+ years of contribs show that i am neutral in articles, per the infobox on my userpage. Look at the Lib page, no policy failures. The section on this page is about their reform - Labor, by definition a party of reform. Criticisms ("affairs and scandals") are for pages like the PM and the PM govt. All perspective is being lost, and it's a shame. Timeshift (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Labor as party of reform

Timeshift, Labor is NOT "by definition a party of reform," let alone "THE party of reform." Labor is by definition the party of the labour movement, which has been at times strongly opposed to reform of various kinds. Labor is ultimately controlled by the unions, and union secretaries are notably conservative about many things. For much of its history Labor defended the White Australia Policy and opposed its reform. Labor was a statist, protectionist party and opposed tariff reform, privatisation and deregulatory reform generally. Labor favoured direct over indirect taxes and thus opposed taxation refom and particularly the GST. Most particularly, Labor has always opposed "labour market reform", as exemplified by WorkChoices. "Reform" is an ambiguous term. Some reforms are good, some are bad, some are pushed by Labor, some are pushed by the Liberals. It's because you don't seem to understand this that you keep stating your opinions as though they were facts. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Toad has nailed it exactly. That should be in the article. Rjensen (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Reforms, through Acts, are changes. Nobody said reforms = good. That's all up to personal opinion. The Act by year list proves that Labor is the party of reform in Australia, and when a Labor/Labour party is a major party in a western democracy, they typically pass more Acts than what is invariably a conservative opponent. None of this should surprise anyone, and certainly nobody could disagree. And if you think Labor has always opposed labour market reform, you've obviously never heard of Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, and that's on the assumption your idea of labour market reform should be in the direction of deregulation. Timeshift (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I said ""labour market reform", as exemplified by WorkChoices." Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

WorkChoices actually increased regulation, but that's besides the point. Hawke/Keating made a large number of changes. Timeshift (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The Liberal Party is half the age of the ALP, yet can cite many major and historic reforms and political firsts: both in terms of society and in terms of economy: from Aboriginal rights, to women's involvement in parliament, to taxation, to opening immigration. Furthermore, Hawke-Keating government benefitted a great deal from bi-partisanship on economic reform in the 1980s, whereas the Howard Government had to fight the ALP every inch through the Parliament in its economic reforms and financial management - so writing that the ALP has the "comprehensive history of reform" or is "by definition the party of reform" is highly contestable (to say the least). Why not just write "The Labor Party has been responsible for the carriage of many important legislative reforms in Australian history", which is simple and factual and allows you to list the significant ones without precluding further historical discussion about their role in aus politics.Observoz (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Australian politics for the past 100 years has been Labor vs non-Labor. The FTP/ASP, the CLP, the NPA, the UAP, and LPA have all had a common ideological strain, and those MPs who were in the earlier parties were invariably in the later parties. In essence, changing the name and structure of the party does not hold up your claim of half the age. The non-Labor side has had as much time to pass reforms. Whitlam passed more in 3 years with a hostile Senate than Menzies did in nearly two decades with a majority Senate a majority of the time (Menzies never ran a budget surplus, I love pointing that out). You've listed four specific reforms on the non-Labor side - do you think you could rack up anything near remotely as long a section as the one on this page? The Coalition is blocking all legislation now, Labor blocked a lot of legislation in the Howard years, but guess what... as the Coalition says, it is the government's responsibility to pass legislation, not the opposition. Affairs and scandals are for the PM and PM government articles, not the party article, as demonstrated correctly at the LPA article. I don't think any of this is contestable. However, your last sentence did jump out at me as a proposed compromise. Well done. I think it's vastly lifted the level of discussion here. I took it in to consideration, and i've taken it up. I've also noticed much duplication between this section and the WW2 and beyond section, which has been fixed. Thankyou! Timeshift (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I would invite editors to carefully review Timeshift's "fixes" for duplication. He posted some odd remarks on my user page about "irrelevant" content in the Whitlam section being "already" in the WW2 section. In fact my entry predated his changes to the ww2 section and his additions dropped several key points from my text. I trust this is merely a good faith error.Observoz (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I expanded it slightly to include a couple of links of yours that weren't included. My point is that it was already mentioned above. This section is not for all and sundry. As for your reversals and the Fraser link, it is irrelevant to this article, and we do not talk about all the legislation modifications and/or reversals that have ever occurred in this article. I think it's looking even better after fixing the WW2 and beyond section. But the base of it was already there in that section. The WW2 and beyond section really does encapsulate some of what you've added, but some of it was irrelevant. Timeshift (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. It was not "already mentioned". You re-wrote the details after my additions, which is fine, but then accused me of "not reading" the article - which is not fine. For the record, I think it is relevant to the section that Whitlam's reforms involved massive expansion of the federal budget AND several setpiece reforms were subsequently repealed. Otherwise, international readers etc will be left with the impression that Australians have "free" tertiary education - which of course, we don't. These things, Timeshift labels "irrelvant". What's the consensus?Observoz (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Gough's dismissal and the constitutional crisis were referred to in the WW2 and beyond section before any of this. I accused both of us of not reading the article. Whitlam's budget expansion is still mentioned in the reform section. But there was so much duplication. I've been bold and taken the axe to this article. I think everyone will agree there was a lot of duplication that has now been merged. I've added HECS for fee-free tertiary education per the case with Medibank/Medicare. Timeshift (talk) 05:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Could I get some opinions on my view that Timeshift's sections on "notable" federal Labor governments, whether or not they are too eulogistic, do not belong at this article, which is about the history and structure of the ALP, but rather belong at the articles about the various PMs, or perhaps at new articles about their governments? I think this article is already too long and all this cataloguing of legislation is just clutter which duplicates other articles. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I've actually not expanded the article by removing duplication. Timeshift (talk) 08:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The silence is deafening. How about you just admit i've done a good job with improving the article and move on to another area of improvement? Timeshift (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Toad, personally I have no objection to discussing major legislation in historical periods on this page, but I have some concerns about the new structure: the Lib page is, I think, superior to the ALP page because the Lib page provides precis of the significant periods in Lib history, in which reforms and general political maneuverings are able to be broadly discussed. In contrast, the ALP page has been recently re-constructed, with some useful historical info, but a structural weakness - it allows for only a brief historical overview, followed by an extended section which Timeshift wants to include only "labor reforms". The consensus here seems to be that this will allow partisan editors to simply weed out any broad, less flattering discussion of labor history and present misleadingly glowing detail on only certain Labor leaders' in relation to their records on reform. So, to go half way between you and Timeshift, I would say: major reforms are indeed appropriate for an article containing a history of the ALP, but I don't think we should isolate the section from broader historical discussion. Ultimately, I think the best outcome would be to integrate the material into a simple, chronological history, to remove the duplication but give a fuller context to the reforms discussion.Observoz (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's absolute rubbish. Have you missed the rest of the History section above it? Please tell me what you think isn't on this page that should be and why. I think the Lib page's History section is very poor in structure, allowing any sort of picking and choosing. That sort of street level detail is for their respective PM, and PM government articles. The structure of the ALP article should be adopted for this article, it is clearly superior. Timeshift (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute

Ok, so the intensely partisan editor Timeshift has found no consensus for his additions and is refusing to co-operate with any adjustments to his flawed text. Shall I hard revert the whole lot (which is sadly his practice) and force him to work through his changes bit by bit? Or keep trying to balance up the material? Here is a typical example of his inconsistent approach. He addresses Gillard's challenge to Rudd in a text which adds historical details that Labor was "highly popular" for a long time and skirts towards a POV that Rudd was somehow replaced for being "too reformist". He also parrots a political line that the RSPT is "to pay for super increases etc" (when as we all know, revenue is revenue and expenditure is expenditure: its a political trick to say one income stream must necessarily pay for another):

“ with Rudd's election to the Labor leadership, the party enjoyed a long period of high popularity in the opinion polls, but his popularity dwindled at a time when the Rudd government was proposing a Resource Super Profits Tax (RSPT) to fund various areas including a superannuation increase and cuts to the company tax rate, and deferred the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) after losing parliamentary opposition support for the bills. Julia Gillard replaced Rudd as Labor leader and Prime Minister in a 2010 spill. ”

The trouble is not so much in what Timeshift says here, as in what he doesn't say here and elsewhere. He wants to block inclusion of further text noting that Rudd was also in the middle of another "reform": the insulation scheme. As editors know (but future readers won't) Rudd's party gave three examples of poorly handled policies as their reason for dumping Rudd: RSPT, CPRS AND insulation. Later, in unprecedented scenes, they came out and said that the real reason they replaced Rudd was because he was incompetent. He is also (oddly) trying to block inclusion of the fact that the Greens also blocked the CPRS and not just the Opposition. Timeshift is also keen to say that ALP was "highly popular" in the polls under Rudd but then wants to block any reference to them being subsequently "unpopular" in the polls under Gillard (down to 25% primary in some polls) or any mention of a carbon tax and promises attached to it.

Saying Rudd was highly popular is "irrelevant" to a section strictly regarding "reform", but is fine in a piece giving an historical overview. Timeshift however, is using the excuse of "relevance" to delete any additional historical info which would give sections a less "eulogistic" feel.

It is tiresome to have to face such un-operative partisanship in editing. Every editor since Timeshift's additions have complained of his content and a few of his lack of co-operation - but he has dismissed all of their concerns. So what should we do? I don't want to hard revert and say "start again", as he would do, but while his adjustments stand alone, we are letting down readers looking for real Auspol history.Observoz (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Having read the whole article again, I come to view that Timeshift's text is beyond redemption. The whole idea of a section dedicated to showing all the good things Labor governments have done is inherently POV. Trying to balance up Timeshift's text will just produce a swamp of contradictory statements. What the article needs is one section dealing with the history of the ALP, including, briefly, the history of Labor federal and state governments (the section currently headed "Labor splits" should also be incorporated). If people want to write more about such matters in more detail, there should be links to new articles on the various governments (eg, The Curtin Government). The main text should include some of the links to policy matters and legislation that Timeshift has given, but without his inherently argumentative conceptual framework. I might have a go at this in the coming weekend. But I know from long experience that Timeshift will not budge from any position he has adopted without a prolonged edit war, usually resulting in outside intervention. So if I do write a suggested alternative text, I will post it at this page, and leave it to others to decide what to do with it. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The structure of this article here has and leaves room for criticism, but that's mainly for the PM and PM government articles. The articles should concentrate on what they have enacted in parliament, be it good or bad. No bias is given, all information is given factually and readers are left to come to their own conclusions. I fully support this structure for the Liberal Party of Australia article. If I was biased, I wouldn't be saying this. I want to see a uniform structure on both articles. As an aside, I particularly like how New Zealand Labour Party has done their article. Some people need to spend less time playing the man instead of the ball. Timeshift (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Timeshift - the New Zealand Labour article (which you say you like) follows the model advocated by myself and Toad in the text above: it gives a simple chronological history. This is also the model already followed by the Liberal Party article. What you are writing on the talk page bears little relation to your editing. Toad, essentially I agree with you: "Labor splits" and Timeshift's "Labor reforms" section should be integrated into the existing history section. Oddly enough, if Timeshift wants to hold up the NZ article as a model, then he also agrees with you! Observoz (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

And note how it is absent of scandals/affairs? Oh, that's right, because they're a tabloid-type non-encyclopedic flavour of the day that are irrelevant to a party article, only to the PM and PM govt articles! :D Timeshift (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

That suggests two possibilities. Either its a silly whitewash, not worth the ether it is written on. Or the NZLP has a pristine history in stark contrast to the ALP, Liberal Party etc. Again I am not sure what you constitute as "scandal" as opposed to fact, but the Labor splits for example are very important to understanding Labor's history and its periods in and out of office as are events like the loans affair during the Whitlam era, or the Rudd-Gillard war of recent years. This is Labor's history, as much as are its successes and failures in the statutes it has brought.Observoz (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you include the Liberal Party of Australia in that? No. Timeshift (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As always, Timeshift sees any criticism of his text as (a) a personal attack on himself, and (b) a partisan attack on his political views. Such criticism is therefore a challenge which must be fought tooth and nail, regardless of the merits of the issue. His weapon of choice is tiresome, repetitive, heavy-handed sarcasm of the kind seen in his last two posts. There's really no point in arguing the matter with him, because he sees editing here as a form of political combat which he must win, rather than as a co-operative effort to create the best possible article. The only way to deal with this is to create a new text and then defend it against his inevitable reversion war. as I said above, I'm willing to come up with a new text when I get time, maybe over Easter. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes Toad, I am familiar with the technique - he serially avoids any co-operative compromise or engagement in sensible argument when he feels he must protect a partisan line. Prime example his last contribution above: ignoring my substance and asking sarcastically if I "include the Liberal Party of Australia" in my remarks... when, well - YES that's exactly what I did, and WROTE in my remarks. Yawn, yawn, yawn now I've wasted my effort replying to a thoughtless post, when I could have been drafting a new text. I guess that's the plan? Why does this guy have so many bells and whistles on his page, when he carries on like such a troll? Ok enough whinging, there's no rush on a good draft as there is alot of ALP history to cover.Observoz (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I think the two serial contributors really need to get back to getting on the subject. I have maintained it, others have not. I really don't want to get in to a personal defence, but I have been on WP for 5 years, created all the election and by-election articles, and did quite a lot in other areas - I shouldn't need to but have defended myself. This article is watched by many many contributors, and I see very little interest in an attack on the current status quo, or me. The article at the end of the day needs to live up to the same standards as others. NZ Labour doesn't have scandals, neither does the Oz Liberal Party. As it should be. Party articles, as i've said before, aren't for scandals. What is noteable? What they've done in parliament. You know, their main function? If you think it puts the ALP in a glowing light, that's just that you're more likely to agree with the Acts. Those who are against the ALP's Acts, will see it as a damning indictment. There is no bias. Are you for or against X Act? You decide. Timeshift (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Timeshift, that's not particularly true about the Liberal Party of Australia article either, which in fact notes ups and downs in the Liberals' history: like Fraser calling Gorton "unfit" to be PM, and Gorton walking out of the party room when Fraser became leader - about the closest scenario there is to the extraordinary Rudd-Gillard situation (to which you seem to want to delete reference). There's room for more, though basically I agree with you that what parties have "done" is more important than third party criticisms, ministerial fumbles etc. I am happy that you now agree that the chronological style (as in the the NZ article) is a good basic structure. Honestly though, why all the phony indignation and accusations to get you to a point of saying "historical chronologies are a good structure"??? Whilst I agree the NZLP article is built on a good structure, I find it overall lightweight and I know that we can do better here. I agree also with what you write here that we don't want to get caught up in trivial minutiae, the trouble is that you are attempting to delete far more than that from inclusion in this article. We've got to give background to events like the Lang, Whitlam or Rudd dismissals because it is part of what Labor has "done" - it is not trivia or tabloid material. Meanwhile, I am struggling to find a consistent line from you on the structure you envisage for the article. Finally, if you want to stop being "the subject" here, then try to either read these posts a little closer so that you don't launch unfounded jibes like your crack about "would I include Liberals", or if you do make a mistake in the heat of the moment, just apologize and accept that it would be frustrating for a fellow editor. Bye for now.Observoz (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Leadership fights are different to scandals and affairs - we both know this. I think that the leadership spill articles that are linked to are a sufficient piece of information. Nothing i've added is expanded, it's all linked to as concisely as possible, as are the leadership spills. I have no problem with the mention of the Whitlam dismissal either, it's in the article. If you want to make an argument for an article restructure, then do so, but to say that the current content is unsatisfactory is an unsatisfactory POV. Another 24 hours, and no edits or comments on a highly watched article. Timeshift (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Timeshift, as you know, all six or so editors who've contributed to this talk page (and the Liberal talk page) since your rewrite have had complaints, so stop imagining you've created a flawless text. Meanwhile you've also been deleting alterations to your text, so it's pretty rich to call it "status quo". A good expansion, streamline and rounding out will just take time and co-operation, that's all. Meanwhile, nobody but nobody could have complaints about including the Whitlam Dismissal - the point is we should include background and historical context, which in Whitlam's case involved several factors including the the loans affair, misleading of parliament, the sacking of a Deputy PM etc etc etc. To be clear here, is THIS what you define as "affairs and scandal not worthy of mention in a history of the ALP". Observoz (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The 1975 constitutional crisis article encompasses all that was the downfall of Whitlam. You want to overcontribute negative unjustified bias, other articles do not and should not do this. There hasn't been six, and this has been a long-running debate. I've made alterations to my text is attempts to satisfy objections - it's called cooperative editing. Affairs/scandals are not for party articles, as demonstrated by the Oz Lib and NZ Lab articles. Timeshift (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

YAAAAAAWN. Editors Observoz, Intelligent Mr Toad; Lear's Fool; Rjensen; Saruman-the-white have all commented on the ALP or LIB pages since you began rewriting this article around the 26th of March. They've all expressed reservations. So that's not a particularly "long debate" and that's five editors on the talk pages + the others who've made changes on the page itself. "Affairs" + "scandals" are near meaningless catch all phrases and your accusations of bias are laughable given your record. Observoz (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

And three of those five don't seem to care. This is a long debate, talk began on the 19th of March and I was editing before it - this is a highly highly watched article, and none of the long-timers care enough to comment. Affairs and scandals are words introduced in to this debate by people other than myself. Can you keep this on topic and not about the editor? I have a very good 5 year record of NPOV (with several barnstars). I will not continue to defend my editing, I have the record, the comments, the editors, the years, and the contributions behind me. Seems you're very focused on one article for such a supposedly biased editor. Timeshift (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I care and I am quite aware of your "record". Meanwhile, you are again straying off topic into personal jibes and an odd line of argument. I keep replying because you keep replying - so if I am showing an odd level of interest in this article - then so are you! Observoz (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

What I meant is, if i'm systematically biased, why are you so focused on this article only? Timeshift (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not that you are "biased" in the sense that you are consciously trying to slant the article towards Labor. The problem, as I've said to you before, that you fail to grasp the difference between fact and opinion. You also have no real idea of how to write history in a balanced way. At Wikipedia you are of course far from alone in that, but most amateur historians even at Wikipedia understand their own limitations and don't behave in such an arrogant and truculent way when people disagree with them. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

How am I slanting it toward Labor? I've listed their Acts, like them or not, their famous leadership spills are linked, the dismissal is linked, it doesn't have scandals/affairs, just like the Lib Party and other articles. I think my contributions in this instance are all fact. I haven't judged anything, i've been consistent with other articles in terms of a lack of scandals/affairs, all I give is the facts, like it or not. Do I slant other articles toward Labor? Can you give me a few examples (nobody is perfect as you say) from here and other articles of where I "fail to grasp the difference between fact and opinion"? Timeshift (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Labor and women's suffrage

"They were also successful with suffrage rights, with the enactment of the 1893 Electoral Act in New South Wales for "one man, one vote". Women got the vote in South Australia from 1893, in Western Australia from 1899, and throughout Australia for federal elections from 1902."

None of these things were done by Labor governments, so we need to see some evidence that Labor was in any way responsible. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It could do with a rephrasing. It is the labour movement who pushed for it in progressive governments. Timeshift (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Many people pushed for franchise extension, and for women's suffrage. To say that the labour movement was the leading force in either case requires citations. In the case of women's suffrage I think you'll find it wasn't. In any case, this isn't an article about the labour movement, but about the Labor Party. I may be wrong but I don't think Labor even had members in the SA Parliament at the time of women's suffrage. Women's suffrage in WA was enacted by the conservatives in the (correct) belief that women would tend to vote conservative.Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

SA Labor had one lower house member pre 1893, ten post 1893 election. I believe they also had a few upper house MPs prior to the 1893 election. Timeshift (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Be that at it may, I think the sentence about women's suffrage should be deleted, because I don't think that it can be reasonably claimed as an achievement of the Labor Party. It certainly can't in WA. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it needs to be reworded rather than deleted. Timeshift (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the whole paragraph. None of these things were enacted by Labor governments, but rather by progressive liberal governments before Labor was a force in Australian parliaments. The labour movement no doubt supported them, but that doesn't justify claiming sole credit for the Labor Party, and this isn't an article about the wider labour movement. This content can only be reinstated when and if citations are provided which show that the Labor Party, as a party, can claim principal credit for a particular measure. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Centre-left

I have noted the issue over the 'centre-left' label. I was the IP (I registered this account today). I have a degree in political science and have studied the Labour Party (UK). That party is defined as 'centre-left', but is certainly more left-wing than the Australian Labor Party. Untill 1997, the Labour Party (UK) called for nationalisation of industry. Even the wikipedia article on centre-left says 'The main ideologies of the centre-left are social liberalism...'. The article also states those on the centre-left support 'An extensive system of social security' and 'A mixed economy consisting of both private enterprise and publicly owned or subsidised programmes of education, universal health care, child care and related social services for all citizens'. In recent times, Labor has certainly not been a socially progressive party. Labor has also supported programmes such as the Indigenous NT intervention, welfare quaranting, work for the dole and taken single mothers off welfare earlier. Labor in Queensland also privatised railways, electricity and ports. The party tried to privatise electricity in NSW, and Martin Ferguson recently told states to privatise electricity assets. A significant portion, if not most of Labor oppose gay marriage, abortion and euthanasia, and the party recently adopted harsher asylum seeker policies. I would think a good way of describing the party political position would be Centrist or Radical centre. Both those tend to fit the ALP. Few people would regard Labor as a 'centre-left' party, especially in global context. Welshboyau11 (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I also note Labor Right is the dominant faction. Would anyone object to these changes. Welshboyau11 (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I have once again deleted the "ideology" section in the infobox, with its false assertion that Labor has an "ideology" called "Third Way." We had a long argument about this last January, which can viewed above if anyone is interested. Labor is not an ideological party. It is a pragamatic trade union party, with a socially conservative right wing and a moderately socialist left wing. Attempts to place Labor in a pigeon-hole of "left" or "centre-left" or anything else are futile, and should not be attempted in the infobox. Labor's actual policies and actions should be described in the article. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This user, "Welshboyau11" has been indefinitely blocked for using multiple accounts. This creates a big shadow over whether he really is a political science. I think that until a suitable source is found to suggest that the ALP is not a centre-left party, it should remain in the infobox. I have always needed to have a source to change the ideology on the Liberal Party's page, and have been told I cannot just give my opinion (like the user "Welshboyau11" has done above), so I think centre-left should be added back in until a good source says otherwise. Andreas11213 (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

But it's unsourced, so no. And a single post from you does not make a consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I reject the notion of a dichotomy between pragmatism and ideology forwarded by those such as Mr Toad.

Major political parties, in order to gain a popular majority and effectively govern will make pragmatic policy decisions where necessary; even where those decisions are contrary to the party's ideology.

This point is so manifestly obvious that it is barley worth mentioning. It appears, however, that some need reminding.

The Australian Labor Party can be accurately defined as Social Democratic party on a two-fold basis. Firstly, the party self-identifies as so, as demonstrated in it's National Platform, which quite frankly should be evidence alone for consensus. We are not in a position to reject this definition where such an authoritative reference as a party's own national platform claims it to be so. If not just members of political party, but the party's constitution claims that it holds a certain ideology, regardless of what certain wikipedians think of the relevance of political ideologies in modern Australian democracy, it should be the position of wikipedians to accept that the party themselves should have the final word on this matter. I would also point out that other articles of major political parties (i.e the US Democratic Party) have a defined ideology in their respective infobox referenced by far less concrete sources than their party constitution.

Secondly the ALP has consistently maintained a policy of enacting social democratic reforms in it's time in government according to the contemporary understanding of social democracy. It should be obvious to anyone who has an interest in the history of social democracy that the movement has been in a constant state of flux since its inception. From a faction of the socialist movement, advocating the dissolution of free market capitalism through gradual and democratic reform in the early 20th century, to a movement that advocates for moderate market regulation and social safety nets in order to make the free market more equitable rather than replacing it entirely today. This definition of social democracy is accepted, without significant controversy, on wikipedia's social democracy article. Any discussion that the ALP no longer wishes to nationalise the banking system or other major industries or the party's acceptance of the neo-liberal paradigm under Hawke is irrelevant. Social Democracy as an ideology has changed, and the ALP has moved with it. The ALP's attempt to install a carbon tax and an emission's trading scheme, a national broadband network, a mining tax and expand disability pensions in its last government is enough to demonstrate it's social democratic credentials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtzuc (talk • contribs) 06:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A party's own website is a primary source, and therefore not ideal for our purposes. We need reliable secondary sources to agree on the ideology of the ALP, and they don't. I note that the ruling party in North Korea describes itself as Democratic. Should we follow its lead? HiLo48 (talk) 08:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe your referring to the constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea, which has in it the outlandish claim that the state of North Korea is a democracy. The Worker's Party of Korea, which is the sole legal party (ignoring the rubber stamp Social Democrats and Chondoist Chongu parties) as far as I'm aware does't emphasise democracy in any significant way. The Juche ideology of the WPK quite accurately illustrates the isolationist and militarist goals of the party in practice. This aside, it is farcical to be comparing the legitimacy of the ideological claims of a despotic regime and the ALP. As to your assertion that the primary source isn't reliable, it seems that those who do not want to see the ideology of the ALP in the infobox consistently change their tune in terms of what qualifies as a reliable source, See this comment made two years ago

'look, this is really very simple. The basic rule of Wikipedia is that any assertion of fact must be referenced. So if you want this article to assert as a fact that Labor's ideology is "Third Way," you must produce a reputable source which shows this to be a fact, and not just someone's opinion. Examples of an appropriate source would be the party's platform or constitution, or a statement by the party's leader. If you can't do so within a reasonable time, the assertion must be deleted. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)'

We find ourselves in a bizarre situation where this wikipedia article is contradicting what the party is claiming, in no uncertain terms, what their ideology is. People use the infobox when they want a quick, short summary of a political party. They want to know, how many seats they hold, when it was founded, how many members they have, who its leaders are, and they want to know what it's political goals are, that being, what it's dominant ideology is. We are doing a disservice to them by not including the party's claimed ideology. By removing any reference to the party's ideology in the infobox it makes it appear that the party has none. The very notion that a modern political party does not try to pursue political goals with some degree of ideological purpose is preposterous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtzuc (talk • contribs) 09:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It would all be very simple if everyone agreed on the ALP's ideology, but they don't. And I strongly disagree with your view that a modern political party must have an ideological goal. The Liberal Party is even harder to pin down. Both parties have a primary goal of getting elected. THAT is the ideology today. In the past, parties seriously stuck to ideologies, and that got in the way of them being elected. Not so today. Ideologies sway with voter preferences, and so, virtually by definition, are not ideologies. HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a source in reasonable time that contradicts the claim made by the ALP that they are a social democratic party, and that source is influential enough to justify wikipedia taking such drastic measures as to defy the claims of the party themselves then I see no reason why the article should not revert to what is naturally the original position- taking the claim of the ALP, that they are a social democratic party, as fact.

If you cannot then I can only assume that your claim that 'Both parties have a primary goal of getting elected. THAT is the ideology today' is mere biased opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.184.188.34 (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly an opinion, and we are all biased, but I try very hard to recognise my own biases and to prevent them influencing my editing. Does the ALP actually use the word "ideology" anywhere? HiLo48 (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you so desperate that your going to regress to semantics to make your point? The ALP's national platform identifies six times throughout the document that the ALP is a social democratic party. The notion that wikipedia is not going to recognise that claim because the national platform says 'we are a social democratic party' rather than 'we have an ideology and that ideology is social democracy is ridiculous. Social Democracy is an ideology, it is a matter of mere inference that if a party claims it is a social democratic party then their ideology is social democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.184.188.33 (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I would also add that my position is not based on bias. I make the point that the party claims it is a Social Democratic party. This fact is indisputable, because it exists clearly in the black letter in it's national platform. Your claim requires a degree of political bias because you insist that even despite their assertion that they are a social democratic party they do not behave as such and therefore should not be identified as so. To use the comparison of North Korea claiming they are a democracy made earlier; there is insurmountable evidence that the NK government is engaged in such a high degree of political repression an commits gross human rights abuses that wikipedia should not follow their claim of being a democracy. That evidence exists in various reports from reputable NGO's and international bodies. If you cannot provide evidence that adequately contradicts the claim of the ALP then there is no basis for wikipedia not conforming to the party's claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.184.188.33 (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:PRIMARY. And please use colons (:) to indent your posts. HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for directing me to wikipedia's referencing policy and so on, help from senior wikipedians is always appreciated by newcomers. As for the matter of the primary source. As I have now read it I still maintain that the ALP's national platform is a reliable source. 'Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia...A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source'. It is clear that as a rule secondary sources are given preference or a higher degree of trustworthiness and I appreciate why wikipedia treats primary sources with a greater degree of scepticism. But until there is a secondary source presented to us which does in fact demonstrate that the ALP is not a social democratic party then there is only one positing being adequately referenced, and it is that the ALP has in it's national platform that it is a social democratic party. This, as wikipedia's policy on primary sources requires, is a mere straightforward, descriptive statements of fact. Again, the ALP claims it's ideology is social democracy. This fact requires no other analysis or discussion. Unless proven otherwise we may take this claim as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtzuc (talk • contribs) 01:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Also any discussion and corresponding evidence which demonstrates that the ALP is not as social democratic as it constitution claims it to be probably belongs in a 'criticisms' section of the article and not as evidence to counter the party's self-identified claim of social democracy as their official ideology in the infobox section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtzuc (talk • contribs) 02:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't really like Criticism sections either. HiLo48 (talk)

that's all good and well but unless you're going to provide those sources as requested, or indicate that you're in the process of collecting them then I have to assume that you've conceded to my position and agree to allowing me add social democracy to the infobox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtzuc (talk • contribs) 03:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope. And you actually need to achieve consensus here before adding it. Nobody else seems to have agreed with you yet. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No body, including you, has attempting to counter the points I've made. You've consistently avoided discussing the fact that the ALP does in fact state that they have an official ideology, which is social democracy. How is silence an adequate response? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtzuc (talk • contribs) 03:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

And again. Where your evidence that the ALP's official ideology is not social democracy? or if you accept that the ALP's official ideology is social democracy then the claim is so outlandish and divorced from truth that it warrants wikipedia not referencing it in the infobox? I absolutely insist that you or anyone else here that agrees with this proposition provide it. If not then it's clear that all your engaged in is juvenile stonewalling. That being the case I should not have to rely on consensus from a group that has no interest in providing an accurate, unbiased article on the ALP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtzuc (talk • contribs) 04:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You must now give it time. Time for others to comment. Wikipedia has no deadline, so there is no need to rush. One constructive suggestion is, given that this conversation is buried in a thread buried in the middle of the Talk page, that doesn't even have a title reflecting your goal, maybe you could begin a new thread at the bottom of the page with a more appropriate title. You would probably get more attention there. HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion to begin a new thread. Will do. I look forward to finally being able discuss with you and others why they oppose my proposal as well as review their evidence for it. Dtzuc — Preceding undated comment added 04:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)