Talk:Australian Labor Party/Archive 4

Why the change from "Labour" to "Labor" in 1912?

The first sentence mentions in passing that the name was "Labour" until 1912, but I found no explanation of the change to "Labor." It seems odd to use the American spelling for the party name, given that the word is spelled "labour" in any other context. There's also a reference later, under "Early decades," to "At the 1910 election, Fisher led Labor to victory." But if the name wasn't changed until 1912, shouldn't that be Labour? LincMad (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't got any sources to back it up, but my understanding is that at the time of the change the leadership in the ALP thought that Australia would soon using American English spellings. Alans1977 (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd resigned as Leader

The ABC is reporting that Kevin Rudd has resigned as Leader and Anthony Albanses has been appointed as the new acting leader.Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 12:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like that could be right: AAP/SMH, news.com.au, and Sky News all refer to Albanese as "acting Labor leader" and that Rudd's resignation as ALP leader (but not PM) was effective immediately on Saturday night. --Canley (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand this ABC story quotes Stephen Conroy saying "We've got no leader, no frontbench, no shadow spokespersons who are able to lead the debate for us, and this will descend into complete and utter farce". And that's from a former Senate leader and specifically discussing the current situation than in passing.

I suspect clarity for Wikipedia has been the least of concerns in writing the rules and also exactly how Rudd has phrased it - and who precisely does he submit his resignation to? The new arrangements could lead to a much longer wait for a new leader to be elected but if there's nothing in the ALP that formally needs a leader to sign things off (anything from initiating a complaints investigation to fomally standing down the election campaign team) then this may not have been given too much thought. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Canley, your first link does not call Albanese "acting" anything. The other two do, though.

Problem is, Rudd never said the words "I hereby resign" or anything like them. He said there would be a ballot for the leadership and he would not be a candidate. Normally, that means he'd stay the formal leader until the ballot takes place. Rudd is the one who would address the Caucus, announce the ballot, say he would not be a candidate (if that's still his position, given what Craig Emerson's been saying), and call for nominations. I suspect there's a touch of journalistic licence operating here. Rudd is not out of the country, indisposed or missing in the surf, nor did he lose his seat, so there is no basis on which Albo could be acting leader at the moment. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Just heard that Albo will be contesting the leadership, and Chris Bowen will be the acting or interim leader until the outcome is known. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

There has been inconsistent use of the term "acting" when referring to Bowen's term as (acting) Leader of the Opposition for 31 days; the period in which the contest between Shorten and Albanese was conducted. The term "acting" is sometimes used in the Wikipedia articles on Bowen, Shorten, Albanese, the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Labor Party leadership spill, October 2013, and, I am sure, other places. As caucus did not actually elect Bowen, my personal view is that he was "acting" leader, and not leader; but a definitive view would be welcome. I have replicated this discussion on Bowen's talk page. Rangasyd (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The term I've seen used most frequently in the media is "interim leader". It boils down to being more or less the same as acting in the role, but that terminology doesn't seem to have been used much. Apparantly the NZ and UK Labour parties also have interim leaders during their similar ballot processes, so it might be worth aligning how the position is treated in this article with how its treated in the UK and NZ articles. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

In the British cases the sitting elected deputy stepped up; however the articles are over pedantic and based on a Labour rule that states that when the leadership is vacant the deputy is the leader and not just fulfilling the functions. Bowen was in a closer situation to a Canadian interim leader, which is a recognised position and usually picked by the party executive, and I'm not sure it's really comparable to earlier deputies stepping up. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Table of Leaders

Please stop putting Bowen in the table of Leaders. The ALP has had many acting leaders. Every time a Leader resigns or dies, there is an acting leader until the new Leader is elected. This table does not and should not include all the acting leaders. So it should not include Bowen either. As often as people put him in, I will take him out again. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Article protected

I've just protected this article from editing for 72 hours to allow for a resolution (or at least some discussion) of the slow moving edit war over whether the ALP should have an ideology identified in the infobox. This has been lumbering along for a while now, and would benefit from a discussion rather than just too-and-fro reverts. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Nick, several of us have tried on several occasions to discuss this matter with Andreas, on article Talk pages and on his own Talk page. It doesn't work. He often simply fails to respond. His biggest contributions to discussion have been in Edit summaries, and he often forgets to use them, so it's been completely fragmented and shallow. I have genuine concerns about competence. Feel free to try getting him to discuss here yourself. HiLo48 (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If it does include labels such as 'center-left' or 'social democracy' they need to be referenced. Previously 'social democracy' was referenced. Now it is not. Additionally if it is Andreas who is not communicating with others in order to reach agreement why has the page been protected on what he believes it should be? Alans1977 (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

We have two problems. One is an editor clearly verging on incompetent, who is very poor at communicating (See User talk:Andreas11213 and its history for plenty of evidence), but who is certain he is right. Secondly, the issue with ideologies and positions for Australian political parties. (Andreas has been playing similar games on the Liberal Party and Coalition pages.) Andreas' position is that his claim is sourced. I'll bet I could find dozens of sources giving different ideologies and positions for the ALP. It's information that is very hard to pin down. The party doesn't proclaim a consistent ideology and position for itself. It's not helpful information to put in the Infobox. We should tell readers all we can about the party in the article, and let them draw their own conclusions on ideology and position.

And yes Alans1977, this article has been frozen in the wrong state. HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

We have finally had a couple posts from Andreas on his Talk page. I've asked him to come and join this conversation. HiLo48 (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The source I have provided on this page, "Political Systems Of The World", is a source that is recognised on Wikipedia as a reliable source. It is used on many other pages, one example being the Christian Democratic Union (Germany), where Centre-right is sourced from this book. I see no reason why the ALP's page should not say it is a Centre-left party with the source being "Political Systems Of The World". Andreas11213 (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You see no reason? What about what I posted above? - "I'll bet I could find dozens of sources giving different ideologies and positions for the ALP. It's information that is very hard to pin down. The party doesn't proclaim a consistent ideology and position for itself. It's not helpful information to put in the Infobox. We should tell readers all we can about the party in the article, and let them draw their own conclusions on ideology and position." HiLo48 (talk) 10:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The infobox is used to summarise the main features of an article, so why would you leave out two of the most important parts, the party's ideology and political position. If there is a reliable source that has been used on other pages that suggests the ALP is a Centre-left party, why would you not use it. Besides, if you say that "...The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange..." in the article, why would you not add it in the infobox? Andreas11213 (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Because the party is much more complex than that. Many of its polices (which change quite quickly) and its actions , cannot be simply described as centre-left and democratic socialist. Also I have already said (twice) "I'll bet I could find dozens of sources giving different ideologies and positions for the ALP."

(You seem to have forgotten your promise to use Edit summaries.)

(And can you please indent your posts one step at a time when you're having a simple conversation like this? I've already fixed your previous post.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi HiLo, if you're going to ask for sources for that, I'd suggest that you also provide sources which support your position. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

My position is against having simplistic labels in the Infobox at all. HiLo48 (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Well until you find a source that suggests your position is indeed a fact, then the infobox should remain the status quo; Centre-left, Social democracy Andreas11213 (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. That post is simply not a logical response to what I have said. You didn't use an Edit summary. And I suspect it should have been indented. HiLo48 (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is now unprotected following a freeze applied by Nick-D during which, he suggested, it "would benefit from a discussion". Well several of us have tried. I don't think we've achieved much. Some of us are still trying to teach User:Andreas11213 on his Talk page how to be a respected and productive editor. That discussion doesn't seem to getting far either. We only have that one editor demanding the status quo remains, and that editor is very hard to communicate with. I don't want to unilaterally change the article now, so I think I will ask User:Nick-D to please have another look. HiLo48 (talk) 06:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Now that the article is unprotected, it can be edited freely: admin's don't have any special say over what content is right or wrong, and I simply protected the current version when I decided to act per the normal procedures for dealing with edit warring (see also Meta:The Wrong Version). I'll re-protect or take other action if the edit warring resumes. As a personal view, your assertion that it's not appropriate to assign an ideology to the ALP needs to be supported by references if you want to compare it to the referenced view Andreas has offered. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's reasonable. You're asking me to prove a negative. Mine is a philosophical position. I've given my reasons and logic for it several times. Australian political parties (except perhaps the Greens) don't have rigid ideologies and positions. The ALP certainly doesn't mention one on its website. I cannot provide a source for what doesn't exist. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that there's a vast literature on Australian politics, including the output of political science departments in all the major universities, lots of political journalists and an Oxford companion to Australian politics, I don't think that there should be any shortage of references on the ALP's ideological position, or lack thereof. Nick-D (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it quite reasonable to ascribe the term social democratic to the ALP as it has ascribed it to itself. How close it comes to being social democratic might be debatable. However I find the labels 'center-left' and 'center-right' a lot more problematic. Particularly using the term center-left for the ALP, given the right faction has numerical control. There's nothing center or left about them and they have the numbers. Another problem I have with the term 'center-left' is that its meaning is extremely relative. Whats considered left is Australia bears almost no resemblance to what is considered left in large parts of Europe and South America. Alans1977 (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

This argument has now been running for more than two years, and is becoming extremely tiresome. My basic assertion over this period has been that Labor does not have an ideology. Labor is a pragmatic trade union-based party, which has a socialist left wing and a conservative right wing (both declining in strength), and a large centre of non-ideological pragmatists. The only factual statement which can be made about Labor's political position is that its constitution says that it's a democratic socialist party. But that is so patently a false statement (it was false even in 1922, let alone now), it can only be mentioned as a historical curiosity. Labor's past and current positions on various issues should be described in the body of the article. No attempt to assign to Labor a political position or an ideology should be made in the infobox. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I wish there was a way we could make this a clear and simple declaration somewhere where it could be cited every time we revert a drive-by addition of anything to those Infobox fields. The same applies to the Liberal Party. HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Graphics in infobox

Okay, apparently this edit is controversial. My rationale behind the edit is that it's useful to show how many seats each party has in each state parliament, and the graphics are the best way of doing this, as they are clear and don't take up much room. I'm not sure how they can be called "misleading" – the infobox already includes graphics for federal parliament, so it seems logical to extend that to the state and territory parliaments (as a lot of other Australian political party articles do). IgnorantArmies 14:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

OK for starters the boxes don't break up upper/lower house figures. Secondly the boxes put it in terms of ALP v non ALP (not very useful way to understand Australian politics. AlanS (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Breaking it up into lower and upper houses would require 15 different graphics, which takes up a lot of space. Having a single box for each parliament still gives a good idea of the ALP's representation, at a glance. The information is the exact same information found later in the article, except in a condensed fashion, which is the whole point of having an infobox. (Also, this article deals with the Labor Party, not Australian politics as a whole, so you wouldn't expect other parties to be included.) IgnorantArmies 14:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Given that the bar-graphs are red and blue, they give the impression of one party v another party. As I said completely misleading. And again given that the graphs don't display upper and lower house which run on differing electorates, unless you want to display a lot more information I'd say it's best staying with things the way they were. AlanS (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Frank Anstey was Deputy Leader but is not included in the deputies list

Frank Anstey was deputy leader with the following article being one that confirms this very fact: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/11299483

Obviously someone needs to fix the deputies list and putting the holders of this office in the proper order. Very disappointed that no one did a thorough research on the deputy leaders.

122.106.80.3 (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. He's been included.The Tepes (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

No, Frank Anstey was not Deputy Leader. Until June 1926 the Deputy Leader was always the Leader in the Senate. Albert Gardiner was Deputy Leader until his term ended in June 1926. The rule was then changed and the Deputy Leader was in Reps. James Scullin was Deputy from March 1927 to April 1928, followed by Arthur Blakeley. Before 1926 there was an Assistant Leader in the House of Reps. Anstey held that position from May 1922 to March 1927. (Source: Weller, Caucus Minutes, 450.) Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up.The Tepes (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Oops, somebody forgot to finish a sentence

In the third paragraph of the Early decades at federal level section, there is a sentence fragment that currently reads, "In addition, many members from the working class supported the liberal notion of"

I would suggest one of you guys fix it but I'm scared it might start another edit war.__209.179.37.7 (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It's good to see you guys finally fixed this eyesore. Of course you had to spend two months arguing about other stuff but I guess later is better than never. __209.179.62.240 (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Ideology and political position

Why have political ideology and political position been removed from this article?

It's been discussed to death. Read talk and archives. Timeshift (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

There to long can u just sum it up for me TURTLOS (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Summed up... no ideology/position. Timeshift (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The ideology/position were considered too complex or in some cases non-existent to be encompassed in just a few words, and as a result have been omitted from Australian party articles for some years now. Frickeg (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair Enough TURTLOS (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Reopening debate.

I think that saying that the Australian Labor Party is laborist is not a controversial stance. The ALP is connected with the organized labor movement of Australia and it is broadly pro-labor, which underpins all of their policies. 2.218.107.40 (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It's also meaningless. To say that the Labor Party is a labour party is not telling anyone anything. The term "laborist" has no currency in Australia and is not a word the ALP has ever used. At the risk of reopening old arguments, let's restate that it is not open to editors to ascribe ideologies or political positions to parties based on their own opinions. Any such ascription must be properly referenced, and not just by reference to other people's opinions. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I really enjoy Toadie's contributions, in particular his arrogance being nearly as great as his ignorance, his screamingly funny hatred of proportional representation for Australian lower houses (here's a hint - if even NZ has moved to PR, Australia will too) and his constant disregard for WP:OWN when it comes to his pet articles. He should be given his own TV show. Paul Austin (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

What are you hoping to achieve with that kind of personal abuse? Is this the kind of thing you say to people you meet in person? Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been here since 2002, i rarely disparage people on Wikipedia. The fact that I have disparaged Mr Toad/Adam Carr should tell you how sick I am of his behaviour. Paul Austin (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

quote on ALP

one editor has twice erased an explicit statement about the ALP from a prominent historian. It gives fresh factual information about the goal of the ALP to build a strong party and emphasize adherence to its written platform. He gives no reason whatever why he is so distressed about a simple factual statement. He thinks it's "controversial" but has not found a single reliable source indicate that it is in any way controversial. Imagine political history having a controversial aspect??? probably he's upset about a reference to the racism in the platform-- maybe he wants to deny ALP's white supremacy stance in 1905. Wikipedia's NPOV rules require the inclusion of all serious interpretations. Here's the statement that gets erased: The ALP goal was to build a tightly disciplined political party, and required strict adherence to its written platform. Historian F.K. Crowley finds that in 1905: :The party's platform owed much to Australian liberals and progressives and something to overseas influences, but was remarkable in its combination of racist, nationalist, socialist, reformist, militarist and idealist objectives.<ref] F.K. Crowley, Modern Australia in Documents: 1901 – 1939 (1973) p 76. </ref] Rjensen (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what F K Crowley says matters. We don't just go throwing in random quotes from historians. Is he and the quote relevant? Noteworthy? And if it does pass those, then in what way should it be included? A slab of text at the beginning of a prominent section hardly seems like the best place. I'm reverting because wikipedia works on WP:BRD. You were bold, I reverted it, so now we discuss it. Once someone removes a new contribution, it CANNOT be re-added until talkpage WP:CONSENSUS takes place. Now please leave it off the article per wikipedia guidelines until consensus discussion has occurred. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes Professor Crowley matters. He's done the research as a professional scholar. We rely on standard reliable sources for all our information. There is no need to take the word of an editor who is unfamiliar with material when we have an explicit statement from a very strong reliable source. Professor Crowley was a leading scholar, head of the school of history and Dean of the faculty at the University of New South Wales, with many studies in Australian history. His modern Australia in documents, which I quoted, has been widely used in all departments of history in Australia. His work has been cited in over 2000 books in Australian history (says google books). So what's the problem? His terse clear analysis of the overall picture belongs at the beginning of a prominent section on the history of the party. It explains what the overall policy thrust of the ALP was in the 1901-10 period, with the rest of the section providing details. Timeshift9 unfortunately is not bold enough to provide any alternative readings or RS, nor to explain why he personally claims Crowley's analysis is "controversial" -- Does he think it is not accurate, does he think ALP strategy is uninteresting and should not be mentioned, does he think it disparages the ALP re racism? Just what is on his mind he has not told us. Rjensen (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You need to stop assuming bad faith. I said "it's importance for inclusion, and it's position, is controversial". Nowhere did I say the content itself is controversial, and you very well know it, so stop putting words in my mouth. I can see you're angry so i'll just re-cap and let WP:BRD take place. We don't just go throwing in random slabs of quotes from historians, is the quote noteworthy for the article and if so what makes it rise above other quotes. A slab of text at the beginning of a prominent section hardly seems like the best place. So yeah, as I said, I can see you're angry, so i'm not going to engage after this, for now. I'll allow other editors to talk and let WP:BRD take place. Just remember, until consensus occurs, you can't re-add the disputed content. The onus is on you to wait for consensus before re-adding, not the other way around. That's how WP:BRD works. By the way, I noticed you added an F W Crowley (FW or FK?) quote to History of Adelaide. You can't just go around wikipedia plastering some guy's quotes over random articles. They have no context. You're a "factoid adder" :/ I won't revert it, for now, hopefully someone else will. Editors usually take a quote as a source, not a contribution, and blend it in to an article's content without using their direct quote in the article. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Timeshift uses insulting terminologies like "slab" to characterize scholarly material. That together with wanton erasures is enough to make a scholar angry. His little lecture on how-to-quote is silly: he does not know the first thing about how historians use quotes. So let me restate the issue: Is the text in question (one sentence by me and one by Crowley) a suitable summary of an important topic: the strategy of the ALP to emphasize very close adherence to its written platforms and positions. I say yes. Let me add that is is more than a one-sentence quote, it is also my paraphrase of additional material by Crowley: The ALP goal was to build a tightly disciplined political party, and required strict adherence to its written platform. He did not see that. Timeshift9 asks, "what makes it rise above other quotes". That's easy: this is the only quotation from any scholar. It's not as if Timeshift9 has a better quote: he has no quotes and no sources for his opinions about the ALP in 1905. (He knows a lot about the ALP in 2015, but it's a fallacy to assume nothing much has changed in the ALP in the last 110 years.) Indeed there are no quotations from any reliable secondary sources in the entire section--that is a serious weakness for historical reliability. I am trying to fix that weakness. (There are a couple of half-sentence snippets from primary sources-- they are from party platforms that were fiercely fought over because as the disputes text says, the ALP strategy was based on everyone pledging support to the text of the platform.) Rjensen (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I am with Timeshift9 on this. Wikipedia as a whole is not big on big chunks of quoted text, no matter how you feel historians use them. It's not really in keeping with the site's editorial approach to single out one academic's viewpoint above all others, and it's hardly something on which there is universal consensus. You're coming at this from the wrong angle: random quotes from academics are rarely, if ever, going to be seen as justified, and your assumption that Timeshift9 needs to respond to your quotes with other ones is incorrect. This said, I am absolutely up for improving our coverage of very early Labor (which I would agree with you this article, and Wikipedia in general, does not do well, and which is a very strong interest of mine) - you're just going about it the wrong way. If you flick through Wikipedia's featured articles, you'll get a much better idea of how Wikipedia approaches historical writing. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to the discussion TBW. Rjensen, a "slab of text" indicates it's a large amount of text. There's nothing insulting about the word "slab" unless you feel you need to take it that way. Timeshift (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Australian Labor Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091030014535/http://www.alp.org.au/platform/chapter_12.php to http://www.alp.org.au/platform/chapter_12.php

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

So with removals of lists...

I've searched the article for links of former ALP Premiers, in particular Don Dunstan, but with zero result. Same with History of the Australian Labor Party. It seems if one wants to find ALP Premiers, they would have to go to an article called Leaders of the Australian Labor Party. The only link to this "Leaders" article in the Australian Labor Party article is under a section heading of "ALP federal parliamentary leaders" and in the sentence of "For a list of ALP federal parliamentary leaders and deputy leaders see Leaders of the Australian Labor Party". Is it just me or does this seem like more than a few steps back? Timeshift (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Leaders are an obvious thing to have in this article, and I thought the changes were weird at the time but was too busy with uni exams to chirp up about them. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks TDW. Anyone else care to comment? Timeshift (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Use which English

The article's early instructions say to use British English, dated November 2013. Is there some historical/historian's reason for that, or should it be changed to Australian English? Wikiain (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Should be Australian English IMHO. Spelling within this article is particularly Australian English given the party's spelling change from Labour to Labor in 1912. Timeshift (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

No question that it should be Australian. Frickeg (talk) 07:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - done. Wikiain (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Images at www.alp.org.au free to use...?

I was looking on www.alp.org.au for a copyright link like the Liberals have but I can no longer seem to find anything at all. In the absence of anything to claim copyright, am I correct that content at www.alp.org.au has no copyright? Timeshift (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright doesn't work like that, but they have a copyright statement anyway. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

List of political parties named "Labour Party" or similar needs renaming

Per discussion, can anyone link me to any consensus discussion that may or may not have occurred in regards to the name of this article? The article name seems clunky and is ambiguous. What about "List of Labour political parties", to make it clear that this is a list of specific parties with a Labour/Labor trade union movement history. Separate from the content at disambiguation article Labour Party, this list article List of political parties named "Labour Party" or similar could be used as an article for what a Labour Party is, and used in the context of "the Australian Labor Party is a Labour Party that etc". Timeshift (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is that article even a thing? These parties have nothing necessarily in common besides a shared common word in their name. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

For Labor leader and election articles in the context of: "the world's first Labour Party government" et al. The name Labour (or Labor) Party, or similar, is used by political parties around the world, particularly in countries of the Commonwealth of Nations. They are usually, but not exclusively (though unsure of any that aren't), social-democratic or democratic-socialist and traditionally allied to trade unions and the labour movement. Many labour parties are members of the Socialist International. Whether NZ or the UK or anywhere else, the first successful "Labour" parties began in Australia and should be able to be linked to a generic "Labour Party" article which discusses the history of the global "Labour Party" idea/movement. Timeshift (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

If the article is about "labour parties" as a general topic, it should be called "Labour party" and be entirely rewritten. As it stands it appears to violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY, not to mention duplicate Labour Party (a disambiguation page). What next - List of people named "Bob" or similar? Frickeg (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

No type of party is as specific as a "Labour" party as far as I can think. There's conservatism, liberalism, socialism, social democracy, liberal democracy, communism, et al, and we have articles about them, but I would argue Labour parties are far more clearly defined by their links to trade unions and union movements yet there is no matching page. Laborism redirects to labour movement. As such, List of people named "Bob" or similar is the worst example to link to for this. Timeshift (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You didn't respond to my point. How is this not (a) a duplication of the disambiguation page and thus pointless, or (b) needing to be completely refactored as a general page on labour parties?

Also, what about green parties? They're arguably even more specific. And the List of green political parties article I have no problem with, because it doesn't say anything about the name. List of labour parties might be OK, but it would need to include equivalent parties that don't include the word "labour". Frickeg (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Lots of concurrent comments! It seems to me that you're arguing for a page about labour parties generally - but that is not this page. Frickeg (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

There's already been disputes and merge talks between disambiguation-article Labour Party and list-article List of political parties named "Labour Party" or similar (formerly List of Labour Parties). The issue is not so much not having a page describing Labour Parties, but the existing structure method of a disambig article and a list article both at conflict with each other and neither being an actual article. As for green parties, thank you so much for the example - Green party exists and is a good example to use for justifying a Labour party article of similar structure. As for the article name, please see discussion as I first indicated and perhaps comment there instead? Timeshift (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Gosh, yes. Got distracted there! I'd be fine with List of labour parties and will comment there. Frickeg (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Debate on Australian Labor Party's Ideology and Political Position

I know how I have read up here in the talk page that the Australian Labor Party "has no ideology". But what does everyone else think about the sources that have pointed to the Labor Party having an ideology and a political position? I have several sources that I collected from looking back in the article's history. Whenever or not that they're relevant or if they need new sources to indicate it's political position and ideology. I'm quite certain that we need new citations on it's political position and ideology. Here's the code from way back in 2013: |ideology = [[Social democracy]]<ref>{{Cite book |first=Dennis |last=Woodward |title=Social Democratic Parties and Unions in a Globalized World: The Australian Experience |work=Social Democracy After the Cold War |publisher=Athabasca University Press |year=2012 |pages=183–204}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |first1=Rodney |last1=Smith |first2=Ariadne |last2=Vromen |first3=Ian |last3=Cook |title=Keywords in Australian Politics |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2006 |pages=176ff}}</ref> |position = [[Centre-left]]<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Derbyshire |first1=Ian |last2=Derbyshire |first2=Ian |year= |title=Political Systems Of The World |journal= |publisher=Allied Publishers |volume= |issue= |pages=113 |url=http://books.google.com.au/books?id=DIkWJ3psB2gC&pg=PA113&dq=Political+Systems+Of+The+World+liberal+party+of+australia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TTBeU9j-OsSukgXj3YDoAg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Political%20Systems%20Of%20The%20World%20liberal%20party%20of%20australia&f=false}}</ref>

I know it's no longer part of the Socialist International, so it would definitely mean that it's lost it's "Social Democracy" ideology. I've even thought about if the political party has "progressivism" as it's ideology instead, and if so... it would be great if we could find a reliable source that can verify it. It's just something that I feel is missing.—Platinum Lucario (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the most sensible and encyclopedic solution would be to have a dedicated Positions/Ideology section in the article, where we say something along the lines of "The Labor Party has been described as x, y, z, etc." (obviously with lots of high-quality citations). The infobox's ideology parameter could then just have "various – see below", with a link to that section. Listing actual positions/ideologies in the infobox generally just leads to edit-warring. IgnorantArmies (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Platinum Lucario - the ALP may no longer be a member of the Socialist International, but it is part of the Progressive Alliance, which is overwhelmingly made up of social-democratic parties who are or were also SI members.--Autospark (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australian Labor Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923182841/http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/australianlaborparty/pages/121/attachments/original/1365135867/Labor_National_Platform.pdf?1365135867 to http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/australianlaborparty/pages/121/attachments/original/1365135867/Labor_National_Platform.pdf?1365135867
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923182841/http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/australianlaborparty/pages/121/attachments/original/1365135867/Labor_National_Platform.pdf?1365135867 to http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/australianlaborparty/pages/121/attachments/original/1365135867/Labor_National_Platform.pdf?1365135867

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 23:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Labor Party's Ideology and Political Position

I really don't understand you people.

It is perfectly clear that the Australian Labor Party is a third way, social democratic, center to center-left party, just like most social democratic parties of Europe. The party has two official fraction, the Labor Unity, which is more centrist and third way social democracy, and Socialist Left which is more democratic socialist and traditional social democratic fraction.

These things are perfectly clear if you read the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IWA1864 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Based on facts that ideology and position of the Australian Labor Party is quite obvious by reading this article, I will make changes to the article. It is perfectly clear that, Labor Unity fraction is more a third way social democracy, similar to the Tony Blair's New Labour, and the Socialist Left fraction is traditional social democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IWA1864 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@IWA1864: Hi there, this is just a procedural comment: your bold edit was undone because the addition of the ideology requires consensus from the community – consensus you do not have as yet. Please do not add the ideology back, otherwise it will be reverted again. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you please explain me why is that the case?

@IWA1864: please refer to Wikipedia's policy on the matter, specifically Wikipedia:Consensus#Achieving_consensus; additionally, in this article's talk page archives, you will find various discussions regarding the addition of the ideology. Best, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I mean, the ideology and position of the party is not controversial at all, and if you read the article it is perfectly clear that the party is a third way social democracy, center to center-left party, just like most social democratic parties of Europe. The party has two official factions, the Labor Unity, which is a third way social democracy like Tony Blair's New Labour, and Socialist Left which is more democratic socialist and traditional social democratic fraction.

All this information is written in the articles about the party, on the wiki page Labor Unity in section political views it states that "The Right views itself as the more mainstream and fiscally responsible faction within Labor, the faction is most famous for its support of Third Way policies over Labor's traditional social democratic policies", and on page Labor Left it states "The Labor Left (also known as the Socialist Left and Progressive Left) is an organized social democratic faction of the Australian Labor Party."

Mr Toad's contributions

I was just looking over the article history. @Intelligent Mr Toad 2: contributions are somewhat skewed by the fact that he is a Baby Boomer born in the early 1950s. A lot of what he thinks are "not in use in Australia" or "incorrect usage" *are* in fact used widely by younger non-Baby Boomer Australians and the Australia media generally. Mr Toad seems to think that just because he doesn't like something being used from his Baby Boomer perspective, then that makes it illegitimate, even though a cursory look at news.google.com.au would prove him wrong. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Paul Benjamin Austin: Would you mind giving some examples, given that this is apparently deep in the article history? Saves us all trawling through to find your concerns. :) Frickeg (talk) 07:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Frickeg:, I'll look through the archives and get the examples. Mr Toad also said on his facebook that Islam is not compatible with democracy. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Political Positions/Ideology

The party is neoliberalism stated in the website: link Malayedit (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australian Labor Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050720062736/http://www.whitlam.org/collection/1973/19730718_Tariff_Reduction/ to http://www.whitlam.org/collection/1973/19730718_Tariff_Reduction/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110923163414/http://www.rainbowlabor.org/pages/ to http://www.rainbowlabor.org/pages/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Unlicensed Paul Keating image - user won't stop reverting - help!

Per my usertalk discussion, the user is repeatedly reverting to an invalid license image - Paul Keating colour 1989 - for over a dozen Paul Keating articles. If absolutely nothing else, won't even follow WP:BRD - status quo during dispute until consensus. Someone please step in, my attempts to educate have gone unheeded. Raised at [WP:AUP]. Timeshift (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Donations

Per this. Aside from op-eds (even from journalists) being undesirable references, the source actually says that the ALP received "141,000 from Huang affiliates" not the one person as the inserted text stated, and it does not say what the timeframe was when the rest of the para is referring to the single financial year (and 2015-16 at that!). There are much better references available to work up something good on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D. Thanks for pointing out it's actually Huang affiliates, yes that would need to be corrected. As for the reliability of the source, WP:NEWSORG states When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. The article's author is the political editor of a prominant newspaper, "a Gold Walkley award winner, a former foreign correspondent in Tokyo and Washington, and a visiting fellow at the Lowy Institute for International Policy". Surely this qualifies as a recognised expert? Besides, the reference is not being used to present an opinion, it is merely evidence of a specific fact (the donation). So far, there is nothing to suggest that this fact is untrue. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I feel like this is a WP:NOTNEWS case. It is barely a footnote in the history of donations and the Labor Party. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is a recent event, but I believe it is still notable. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

How is it notable? This article is covering 125-odd years of party history involving many many donations over many decades and you're trying to include one donation in its own section because it's been in the news this week. There is no better example of WP:NOTNEWS (and WP:UNDUE for that matter). The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Nick, sorry that I forgot to correct the omission of "associates". However, could you please discuss any issues with the text here, instead of ignoring my reply and reverting my edit again? 1292simon (talk) 09:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This same information is also on the Liberal Party of Australia and National Party of Australia articles, if it is removed / added it should be the same across all three, otherwise it appears biased. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The sentence does not fit with the reference to the top ten. If the top ten go down to donations of $100k, how can there have been a donation of $141k? If there were multiple "affiliates", then the total must add to $141k, not more (or less). I can't find them from a quick read of the primary source for the list. Maybe the Huang affiliates' $141k could be mentioned if there is an explicit reference to the numbers that must be added to reach it. I'm not entirely convinced that the 2016 donations are appropriate in an article about a party with over 100 years of history anyway, and would consider deleting the entire paragraph. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)--Scott Davis ^Talk 10:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - this appears to be WP:NOTNEWS (for all the articles it's been added) as noted above. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Just joining the others that it's just as much WP:NOTNEWS on the Liberal and National articles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the source is very vague, in that it loosely refers to a group of "associates" and the time period for the donations are not specified. I now agree that the text does not meet Wikipedia policy. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Ideology

I wanted to reopen this issue because it has been a few years since the last discussion on it, and consensus has since been reached on this issue as it pertains to other parties in Australia and ideologically similar parties in other countries. I would propose Social democracy and Social liberalism.--Jay942942 (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Mark Latham hardly seems like a reliable source on anything - especially given his frequent attacks on the party he once led at the Federal level. Nick-D (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. There is a relatively longstanding consensus not to include an ideology field because it is perennially disputed and a source of neverending argument otherwise. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems like lots of people are eager to add ideologies to the infobox but no one seems to want to sit down and write a few coherent paragraphs about them and their relative importance in the ALP ... which would be of much more use to the reader. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 06:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps we can write a paragraph in WikiProject Australian politics to say something like "Ideaologies and positions must not be included in infoboxes and categories unless there is a cited paragraph of prose under the heading "Ideology and position" explaining the details and history" and link to that paragraph from the comment in the example template and every relevant article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry a quick observation, why is it agreed not to add a political position and ideology in the infobox, whilst in the opening sentence of the article the political position of the party is stated, and in one of the opening paragraphs their ideology is stated? Cdjp1 (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The Australian Labor Party is definitely a social-democratic party. --Checco (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Social democracy

Democratic socialism

Trade unionism

These are all supported by the article itself and shouldn't be controversial except for people pushing a point of view. I will place them in that order unless there is credible opposition here, which I do not expect at all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

We must complete it in the infobox!--186.59.190.161 (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Party leadership resignation isn't immediate

Shorten has updated that he will resign as leader when his successor is chosen. However, a Mobile editor keeps deleting him from the infobox. Would somebody explain things to him? GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Ideologies

I believe the Ideologies of the Australian Labor Party should be visible on the sidebar on the article just like all other Political Party articles on Wikipedia, it would be easier.

SymeonHellas (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Late reply to say that I agree. I’m not sure why Australian political parties are a special case in this regard when literally every other political party in every other country includes their political position and primary ideologies that encompass it. With regards to the ALP - it is obvious to pretty much anybody with at least basic political knowledge in Australia that, in its current state, that they are a party that espouse social democracy and social liberalism and that in the Australian political context that they are a centre-left party. Geelongite (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Political position

When we literally state is a major centre-left political party in Australia, I don't understand why Centre-left as political position in the infobox would be a problem. We either don't insert it and also change to is a major political party in Australia, which is what I did here, or we write it in both lead and infobox.--Davide King (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

We came to a general consensus to leave it out of political party infoboxes a while because (in some articles more than others) it was being the subject of constant revert-warring by random newbies and wasn't worth the hassle for an infobox field. It hasn't come up nearly as much in the context of the party articles themselves until very recently, so it's not something we've really discussed very much. I supported the infobox removals because it just wasn't important enough for the hassle it was causing. I'm much less keen (even though I know it's the same language) on removing them from the article prose because unless people come up with some sort of carefully-explained alternative it results in party article lead sections that wildly dance around the politics of the party, which makes them needlessly confusing to people who aren't already familiar with them. (The most awkward example would be if this happened with the Liberal Party, considering that in most other countries in the world the Liberal Party is a left-wing party).

I feel like we need to come to some sort of solution about how to address party ideology in the lead sections of articles across the board because the "just remove it" approach, while probably easier on Wikipedians who think we never have to discuss the issue again, leads to oddly-worded articles you'd never see in any other publication. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The answer: reliable sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

We know we can find sources for every single one of these conversations (case in point), so alas it doesn't really get us anywhere closer to an actual general consensus outcome on what to do with these situations. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand and respect that, but as I wrote my main issue is literally writing that it's a major centre-left political party in Australia but then don't reflect that in the infobox. I can understand for the American Democratic and Republican parties as being an exception; and perhaps for the Australian Greens too (although I hope someday all of this could be fixed with academic, peer-review sources that will better discuss their positions), but I don't get it for this. Is it because the party moved to the centre in the 1980s with the Third Way? That's literally what most social democratic parties did, but we still have Social democracy and Centre-left in the infobox without much issues; and I think reliable sources triumph several users' personal opinions, especially in matters of politics when there's always going to be some bias (is there really no reliable sources that agree with a centre-left consensus?). It's also very American/Anglo-centric to say that in most other countries in the world the Liberal Party is a left-wing party. As far as I know, whether simply following liberalism or calling itself the Liberal Party, the left-leaning liberal parties are at best centrist to centre-left (social liberal) and most of them are centre-right (conservative liberalism) parties. [S]o alas it doesn't really get us anywhere closer to an actual general consensus outcome on what to do with these situations, so what's the issue? Is there users who say it's centrist and others who say it's a left-wing, rather than centre-left? A quick research on what reliable sources say should stabily that, whether we personally agree with it or not.--Davide King (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: @Onetwothreeip:.--Davide King (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Re the infobox, it's not specifically about the ALP at all - it's that we've had a general no-ideology-in-infobox practice for some years now (basically because people felt it wasn't worth the inevitable edit wars when some new user readded it and then a different new user disagreed, which was happening quite often across different articles, all over an infobox field). If you're not arguing with the actual descriptor in the lede, nobody is (yet). Nobody's raised the issue in relation to lead sections until relatively recently, so unlike the infobox issue, this hasn't really come up and been hashed out properly - and I don't blame you for thinking that it's a bit of a contrary position. I've posted on the general Australian politics WikiProject asking for comments in the hope we might resolve it once and for all here because it's an issue that's keeping popping up lately. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and clarification, The Drover's Wife. As far as I can see, one of the main issue was adding the Third Way, so why not revert back to simply Social democracy and Democratic socialism (which well describe the history of the party) pretty much like the British and New Zealand Labour parties? One party may be well to the left or right to each other, but all three seems to fit well within the centre-left tradition and it makes no sense to say in the lead that it's a major centre-left political party in Australia but then don't reflect that in the infobox. Maybe we could add the two factions in the infobox too like we do for the American Democratic and Republican parties. I think it's very needed an Ideology section that better discusses all this (especially the party reforms since the 1980s, its relation with neoliberalism, how it was the first New Labour, social liberalism, etc.) but there shouldn't be really any controversy with Social demcoracy and Democratic socialism which is what we have for pretty much every like-minded party. We could put a note to not add any unreferenced ideology in the infobox and simply revert any edit that does that; I feel not putting anything in the infobox is a win for them and a loss for Wikipedia. --Davide King (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

If someone has an issue with democratic socialism because their policies don't actual reflect that, it needs to be noted that's the blessing and curse of reformism. But that doesn't mean the party isn't ideologically democratic socialism. This markedly division between the two is ahistorical, many social demorats were and called themselves democratic socialists and they're closer than the common user may think so (they're indeed markedly different if you use social democracy to refer to the Third Way and what social democratic parties do, but it's so wrong to reduce social democracy just to that).--Davide King (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King: FWIW, given your arguments here and the lack of any other participation I've no objection with you adding it back to the infobox with sources. If anyone wants to take it out again, they can come back here and discuss it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I honestly think that it is ridiculous having "democratic socialism" in the infobox for the ALP. I remember the long debate that was held on the UK Labour Party talk page on whether or not to include "democratic socialism" in its infobox, during the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn no other! The current ALP does not support re-nationalisations, any major reforms to the industrial relations system, any major climate change reforms and any structural housing positions. The UK Labour Party rightly had both ideologies in its infobox since Corbyn's leadership has quite clearly moved the party as a whole to the left; I just don't think that the ALP is at that stage. Considering that Victorian Socialists, for example, also just has "democratic socialism" in its infobox at the moment, I don't think that there is enough differentiation with the ALP in an ideological sense. For me, "centre-left" with a "social democratic" ideology describes the party perfectly in its current state.LeoC12 (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

No disagreement here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

LeoC12, you fail to realise that social democrats defined thesmelves as democratic socialists and seem to confuse socialism as ideology and socialism as an economic system. Also relevant The Four Deuces's comment here. This is the problem of socialist reformism; because all social democratic parties have to govern the economy accordng to capitalist, not socialist, logic. Yes, most social democratic parties in practice have been social liberals, just like since the 1970s all centre-left and centre-right parties have been neoliberals in practice. That doesn't mean these social democratic or labour parties aren't still ideologically socialists as defined by The Historical Dictionary of Socialism or similar sources.--Davide King (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Davide King I get where you're coming from mate and I recognise the historical perspective - Labor still maintains a lot of its socialist roots through rhetoric if anything (members calling each other 'comrades', flying the red flag, etc.), but if we remove ourselves from the abstract, I would argue that the ALP has no material, concrete socialist platform. Simply once being a "democratic socialist party" (arguably ending for the ALP post-Whitlam), I don't think is enough for them to qualify to have "democratic socialism" included in the infobox. We're an encyclopedia, and part of that is recognising that people quickly scan articles, especially infoboxes for clear, direct information. In my opinion, it would be doing a disservice to the general public by describing Labor as "democratic socialist" (thus equating their current positions with that of UK Labour, for instance), when that simply is not the concrete reality. In my view, if Labor was truly a broad church with a viable left-wing (again using UK Labour as a comparison), then using both ideologies is absolutely justified. In its current state, however, they aren't ideological socialists as you make reference to; they are social democrats who, at best, support a social market economy with strong government intervention, union jobs, etc. To claim they support a structural reorganisation of the Australian economy on the basis of worker ownership is not remotely close to the position the ALP is currently in, hence why I am seeking consensus for this particular deletion. LeoC12 (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for your reply, LeoC12. I hear where you're coming from and I don't disagree with what you wrote either. Indeed, we both seem to be, or at least be fine, with the centre-left and social democratic qualifier. The thing is that the party describe itself as democratic socialist, like the British and New Zealand Labour parties, hence why we also put democratic socialism. The same could be done for most social democratic parties, but I'm fine with having it, as far as I know, only on these labour parties since it's explicitly stated in their constitutions and they describe themselves as such, notwithstanding all the limits of reformism that blocks that and everything you wrote that I agree with. The British Labour party is still centre-left; any so-called leftward move doesn't necessarely mean it's left-wing, especially since it was considered centrist during New Labour, with the Lib Debs to their left, so indeed it could just mean that the British Labour Party is simply back to the centre-left, perhaps even a bit further to the left than it was before New Labour, but still as a whole closer to the centre than to the left, i.e. centre-left.--Davide King (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Nowhere is it claimed that they support a structural reorganisation of the Australian economy on the basis of worker ownership though; and social democracy is a socialist ideology. In other words, the hundreds of political parties around the world that are routinely described as socialist fail your purity test as argued here and here.--Davide King (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The reason I oppose using the position in the political spectrum is that the terms only have meaning when context is established. And all the arguments across hundreds of parties is not where they fit relatively in the political spectrum, but how the various positions should be described. So for example if we describe the Labor as a labor, socialist or social democratic party, where we place them depends on where we place labor, socialist or social democratic parties. We should let readers make that call. TFD (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I don't disagree with any of that, although I think it can still be useful. As far as I know, we place labor, socialist or social democratic parties on the centre-left. For instance, we list both the British and New Zealand Labour parties on the centre-left. Indeed, the only reason I put Centre-left is because we literally wrote in the lead that [the ALP] is a major centre-left political party in Australia, so either we delete both or we keep both. As far as I know, there isn't so much controversy as with the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States which includes the whole spectrum, although I would be interested in reading what academic, peer-review sources say about it, if any.--Davide King (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Country Labor Party

Was wondering how we should approach the issue of the Country Labor Party. In NSW, there are two separate Labor Parties which run in elections in both state and federal.[1] Country Labor is financially and politically independent from the NSW Labor Branch (but is still under the 'Australian Labor Party' federally [2]). [3] However, on pages such as this and the state election results, they're treated as the same. Should we separate the Country Labor Party from NSW Labor? Catiline52 (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Is "Country Labor" anything more than Labour seeking a more country friendly branding in rural seats? Is there an identifiable separate caucus and organised party in sometimes disagreement with Labor? Or is it just the ALP by another name? Timrollpickering (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Very few non-primary sources make a distinction between Country Labor and the ALP. I think the status quo works. --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Country Labor is also very much not financially or politically independent from the ALP. Separate registration does not equal either of those things. The current section on Country Labor is plenty, but should probably be in the NSW Labor page (and some of the unsourced stuff, like the fact that it's a "ginger group" or in any way analogous to Young Labor - it is neither - I am removing now). Frickeg (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

position

https://www.alp.org.au/media/1574/alp_national_constitution.pdf From the ALP constitution: "The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields." end of story, surely?

Request for comments

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Australian Labor Party (South Australian Branch)... should it be written as Labor or more obvious such as SA Labor et al? Request for comments, thanks. Timeshift (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Australian Labor Party ideological position

If the Australian Labor Party is described as democratic socialist in the parties own constitution and our article also uses the same descriptor, should the info box reflect this also? Bacondrum (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Cannot disagree with that logic. HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Remember that when we determine a party's ideology, we primarily rely on reliable third-party sources over primary ones. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Vif12vf Current position and citation are not third party, it is also from the ALP. A now out of date National Conference paper from 2015. Bacondrum (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Democratic Socialist should reflect the body of the article...and failing a better source, the ALP constitution (keeping in mind that the current incorrect descriptor cites an out of date ALP national conference paper). Bacondrum (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yes also agree with HiLo48 Idealigic (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, but with conditions. Democratic socialism should be included under "historical", as it is at the moment. The democratic socialist undercurrent died out decades ago, that part of the constitution hasn't been acted upon since the 1940s.[4] Most academic sources only describe contemporary Labor in terms of being effected by the ideologies of social democracy, labourism, and some variation of social liberalism. There's an open-access paper that only just got released about this topic focusing on ALP branches that's a good starting point, if any editor is interested in expanding this section (and can bother arguing over it).[5] Catiline52 (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered response, I do agree that the party hasn't acted as a democratic socialist party for a long time - my main issue is that the current cite is more or less the same kind of low quality primary source. Thanks for the paper, I'll give it a read. Bacondrum (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

There is this stark difference between democratic socialism and social democracy that is unwarranted. Social-democrats themselves popularised democratic socialism and proudly described themselves as such, most of social-democratic parties are routinely called socialist parties, etc. That since the 1980s they moved to the right because all socialism was linked to the Soviet experience and so they were more concerned to fight laissez-faire capitalism and the New Right, even though critics asserts that they merely provided "left-wing neoliberalism" or "neoliberalism with a human face". The difference is because social democracy is used to mean this Third Way (neo-)social liberalism and democratic socialism to mean old-style, anti-neoliberal social democracy. In reality, this difference is not as stark as is believed to be and has more to do with different traditions and styles. This is further caused by the failure to distinguish between philosophical socialism and economic socialism, or the pragmatism and reformism the majority of socialists in the West adopted. Just because they did not overthrow the capitalist order, it does not mean they were socialists, or they their policies were not guided by socialism or socialist principles, ethics and philosophy, that is the criticism of those to their left. Davide King (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I know there are similarities between the social democratic and democratic socialist traditions, however, Wikipedia defines democratic socialism as "having a socialist economy in which the means of production are socially and collectively owned or controlled, alongside a democratic political system of government." This is a distinction made by every page. It'd be misleading to describe a party as such when they have not done so since the 1940s, and they actively argue against the historic Socialisation clause. Catiline52 (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Catiline52, that is the classical social-democratic definition. The problem is that democratic socialism is now used to either mean Soviet 'Communism' with liberal democracy (in a pejorative way) or the pre-neoliberal social democracy while social democracy is conflated with all welfare states, including conservative, Christian-democratic and liberal ones, as well as the Third Way (neo)-social liberalism, so as to say democratic socialism = Soviet 'Communism' = bad and social democracy = welfare state capitalism = good, when really it should be democratic socialism/social democracy vs. social liberalism/neoliberalism. That most social-democratic parties moved to the right that they essentially took the latter camp (i.e. social liberalism/neoliberalism) does not mean that social democracy itself did, too; in other words, it is those social-democratic parties that abandoned the democratic socialist/social-democratic camp, it is not that social democracy suddenly endorsed neoliberalism. This also ignores many parties such as the German SPD and the Swedish Social Democrats who use democratic socialism, or the Socialist International, which describe themselves as democratic socialist and social democracy as the principle of action. Some parties use democratic socialism to mean a post-capitalist order whereas others use it mainly in an utopian or idealistic sense as an egalitarian society with no discrimination and poverty, as an ideal to strive for, so the social-democratic/socialist parties may all have both social democracy and democratic socialism as we do for the British Labour Party. I oppose your proposal to add Historical (we should not fill up the infobox too much, it is supposed to be a summary) which is based on the above misunderstanding that makes this sharp division between the two, so we either put both (you are the only one to propose adding historical, falsely claiming consensus here, therefore I suggest you to self-revert), or we just say social democracy or social liberalism if reliable sources say so. I think we should say both as is done for the British Labour Party. Note that I actually proposed and added a secondary source while you are making your own original research. Most parties do not live up to their idealised ideology, that does not mean we do not describe them as liberal, conservative or whatever. The source I added supports the democratic socialist qualifier. Davide King (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I think all that is necessary to say here is that it is more than historical. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, it is historical only if you see democratic socialism as post-war social democracy and nationalisations. Of course, most social-democratic parties are no longer democratic socialist in that sense, as they moved to the right since the 1980s, but they are still democratic socialist parties, see The Historical Definition of Socialism. Academic sources do not see them as mutually exclusives while news sources tend to conflate democratic socialism with Soviet communism and social democracy with good ol' post-war capitalism and all welfare states. Davide King (talk) 08:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Include, as this is one of the main ideological groups in the party. The party is unambiguously social democratic and ambiguously democratic socialist, so should be listed second. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, with worst case scenario it being included as historical. The ALP has not been a democratic socialist party since Chiefly tried and failed to nationalise the banks, and even then, there is an argument that the party's support for the White Australia Policy is divergent from notions of proliterian internationalism inherent to socialism. In any case, the modern Labor Party is anything but democratic socialist. Its parliamentary wing and National Platform are firmly in a social democratic to Third Way orientation, and the party is not close to the position of the British Labour Party which has a number of explicitly socialist MPs in its ranks. Sure there are some (a dwindinling number) of socialists in the ALP, but a number of factors, including party discipline, prevent this from being expressed in any real way. Rather, as sources below indicate, the promotion of democratic socialist 'policies' is often reduced to factional and bureaucratic battles that are more about power than paltform. Until the ALP adopts some sort of nationalising policies (such as the BLP did with the proposed nationalisation of rail, mail, and water), I think that social democracy is sufficient and accurate. Some authoritative academic sources supporting this view include: LeoC12 (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

We determine these things based on reliable sources, not on our political analysis. Undoubtedly there will be many sources that praise or criticise the party, but it is clear that one of the major factions in the party has a democratic socialist ideology. Whether the party, or even the Left faction is "socialist enough" is irrelevant. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

LeoC12, see my response above. You seem to make a stark distinction between democratic socialism and social democracy when they are not at all mutually exclusive and for many years, before the Third Way development of social democracy that led it to move to the right. If you use social democracy to mean the Third Way, it makes more sense, even though it was the Third Wayers Tony Blair that first described the Labour Party as a democratic socialist party; otherwise, it makes no sense and sources using social democracy do not negate democratic socialism. Whether they are true or not democratic socialists is besides the point. As correctly noted by Onetwothreeip, "[w]e determine these things based on reliable sources, not on our political analysis." The Commonwealth Labour parties are centre-left parties usually described as an alliance of social democrats, democratic socialists and trade unionists. Davide King (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Davide King Whether they are 'true' democratic socialists is absolutely the point! It's the point we are having this discussion. If we are being genuine political scientists, it is more important to concentrate on the material differences that constitute two different ideologies, rather than promote rhetorical arguments that the two are not mutually exclusive. Descriptions by party leaders or party constitutions, but they are not solid analysis — to claim that Blair's New Labour was democratically socialists is almost as absurd as to claim that the modern ALP is democratic socialist in my opinion, and it shows the weakness of an argument based on self-description rather than looking at academic sources and policies. LeoC12 (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

LeoC12, in other words, the hundreds of centre-left socialist parties that pragmatically governed the Western capitalist economies were and are not true democratic socialists simply for not overthrowing the capitalist order or having a socialist economy. That may be true on face value, but reality is a bit more complicated than that and political scientists and academics sources actually give a more nuanced view. That is/was the whole point of their reformist socialism, which has been criticised by those to their left; that they are not going to overthrow the capitalist order. In other words, all the progress socialists did within capitalism is/was nothing, even though they based their policies on socialist principles (moderate socialists in the post-war period justified the welfare state on socialist principles while liberals and conservatives justified on their own principles as well), just because they did not turn the capitalist economy into a Soviet 'centrally'-planned command economy as soon as they got in power. The ref I provided is a secondary source while the current social-democracy ref is a primary one. Davide King (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

No, we're not political scientists here. The policies of the party are not for us to consider, or the party's governments and oppositions. This is purely a matter of the party itself, and whether it is justified to label it as democratic socialist in some way. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Davide King Well sort of yes! If we had hundreds of genuinely socialist parties in government across the world, I think that would be more noticeable to be honest. I don't think it's that complex of a difference: reformist leftist parties are social democrats, and non-reformist ones are democratic socialists. One doesn't have to back a Soviet-style economy to be a democratic socialist, but one does have to be more left than Third Way/reformist parties like the ALP are. If Victorian Socialists are recognised as 'democratic socialist', there's no excuse for the ALP to be democratic socialist in any way. LeoC12 (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

LeoC12, let me tell you that in a way you are right but you are describing a personal view rather than reliable sources; in other words "the hundreds of political parties around the world that are routinely described as socialist fail your purity test." The Labor Left is democratic socialist, old-style social democracy; it may be more pragmatic and to the right of the Victorian Socialists but it is nonetheless democratic socialism. You seem to use democratic socialism to mean revolutionary socialists and social democracy to mean the Third Way, but that is not really how they are defined in reliable, especially academic, sources. Some distinguish them in light of social democracy's turn to the right and use democratic socialism to essentially mean Marxist socialism, but that is by no means not what the majority of academic sources do. Democratic socialism include both reformist and revolutionary tendencies, with social democracy essentially being its dominant reformist wing. You also may be confusing or conflating socialism only with the economic system, so that any reformist socialist is not a real socialist according to this view, even though most socialists and the socialist movement have been reformist, gradualist or evolutionary, without dismissing or rejecting the possibility of revolution and in same cases even dismissing the reformist–revolutionary dichotomy. I suggest you to read this and many other comments backed by reliable sources by The Four Deuces. Davide King (talk) 09:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Democratic socialism is pretty reformist but these are irrelevant discussions. Your views on social democracy and democratic socialism are not right or wrong, but far from universal, especially if you are using Victorian Socialists to define socialism or democratic socialism. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Include Socialist/social democratic/democratic socialist are usually interchangeable terms, although they can take on different meanings in different contexts. Hence Donald F. Buskey's book Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey (Greenwood, 2000) included the Australian Labor Party and similar parties. The main international organization for these parties until recently was the Socialist International. The adjective democratic was added to distinguish them from Communists, while Communists used the term social democrat to distinguish themselves from socialists. The only problem is that by listing both social democratic and democratic socialist, it implies that these are two different ideologies within the party rather than two names for the same ideology. Probably better to phrase it as "social democratic/democratic socialist" or simply socialist." TFD (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, this. I wish it was made more clear that social-democratic parties are socialist parties. However, I think it is fine to have both and it can be used to accomodate both factions. For example, Busky states that "[s]ocial democracy is often used by democratic socialists to mean a second stage beyond the establishment of democratic government and civil liberties", essentially the welfare-state stage, so it is not exactly the same thing. That social democrats have not been able to go beyond that and exceed that stage does not change the fact that they are socialists or democratic socialists. Davide King (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

As I said, the terms can take on different meanings in different contexts. Busky is merely acknowledging that. Note though that in the sentence it refers to the welfare state supported by democratic socialists rather than an ideology. TFD (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I see your point, but I think it is fine to use both. It is also useful in the context of social-democratic party/socialist factions, of which all social-democratic/socialist parties have in common, with social democracy referring to the right-wing and democratic socialism to the left-wing. Davide King (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I believe Busky describes as democratic socialist the hundreds of socialist and centre-left parties that are routinely dismissed as not socialist enough by those to their left, so that we may add democratic socialism to all those parties such as the SPD and the Swedish Social Democrats, etc. I see your point that we may use only one, either social democracy or democratic socialism (again, we may also use socialism since they are called socialist parties, albeit some part of the news media, including mainstream media, avoid that because as you noted elsewhere they reserve socialism for those leaders they disagree with, but social democracy and democratic socialism are more specific and accurate) but I think the use of both would highlight their history and evolution as well as the two major factions, which is a good thing. Davide King (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

In comparative politics, the most common name for the classification to which the ALP belongs is socialist. These parties were mostly associated with Socialist International. Many of them self-describe as democratic socialist or social democratic. When we use these terms to describe parties, they mean the same thing. We don't want to imply that they have two ideologies under the same roof as for example U.S. Democratic Party does with Bernie Sanders, AOC and Ilhan Omar as "democratic socialists" (which is what they call themselves) or social democrats and all other major leaders as liberals. Of course socialist parties have left-right divisions and they are sometimes called democratic socialist and social democratic. The new party family that has emerged made up of Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists and left-wing Socialists is now generally referred to as "left parties." TFD (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, that is essentially correct. I do not think it gives the impression of having two ideologies, unless one conflates democratic socialism with Soviet communism and social democracy with mixed-economy capitalism; as you noted, we may simply list Socialism but I think it would be better to list the two main factions, which does not imply are two start ideologies, just that one is more left-wing and one more closer to the centre. I did propose to add a Faction parameters to the infobox since they are added anyway and party articles usually, or at least should, discuss ideological or political factions in body, although I see the point that it makes more sense to use it hypotetically only to list actual factions (in this case, Labor Right and Labor Left) rather than the ideology the factions themselves espouse. Davide King (talk) 09:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• No – the party is social-democratic, not democratic socialist (i.e. supports a mixed economy, rather than democratic transition to a planned economy). What the party self-describes itself as in its constitution is irrelevant – several major social-democratic parties also describes themselves as "democratic socialist" in their constitution (e.g. German SPD, Swedish SAP) but would be considered nothing other than typical social-democratic parties.--Autospark (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  Autospark, it is not based just on self-identification. I provided a secondary source, see Busky, Donald F. (2000). "Democratic Socialism in Asia, Australia, Africa, and the Middle East". Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 201. ISBN 9780275968861. You seem to be making a stark distinction between the two which may be used by some news media but which is not made in academic sources. At least three of the sources below (2, 3 and 4) seem to be more of criticism. As noted by Busky, we should not follow the left-wing theory, which ironically I happen to agree with but it is a POV, that social democracy "[is] something less than [true] socialism" and exclude it from the socialist camp. Davide King (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  Who are these democratic socialists who favor a democratic transition to a planned economy? TFD (talk) 09:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Infobox comment

I changed the hidden comment to be shorter and in all capital letters here. This was reverted. I thought this was a rather obvious change to make. Can I get anyone here to briefly express they support this? Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Helper201: Would you be able to just explain here why you think {{Nowrap}} is needed in the infobox? I checked pretty much every reasonable screen size on this scaling tester and none of the screens wrap the text anyways. If you're really concerned that there's going to be some whacky scaling, let alone enough to consider {{Nowrap}}, we should instead be using:

  Democratic{{Wbr}} Socialism
  

  ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• @ItsPugle:, I'm on PC using a web browser without any zoom (actual size) and it was splitting over two lines for me. May I ask what is wrong with this? I see no negative effects upon the infobox whatsoever after adding it. It may have widened it by a very small amount (literally about a millimetre or two) but nothing in any way significant. This has been done across a lot of political party infobox ideology sections as some political ideologies are fairly long words/phrases/terms. I don't know about Wbr as I have not used it before, nor do I know how it is different to nowrap. The reason I added this was to try and make the infobox neater and easier to read and understand for everyone and negate any misinterpretations. Helper201 (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Helper201: {{Nowrap}} is inaccessible - it can break some older screenreaders, on mobile devices (>50% of web traffic) it often forces the reader to scroll horizontally, and on some browsers and older devices, the CSS it adds doesn't work, only breaking it further. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

  @ItsPugle:, so does Wbr do the same thing just without this problem? Helper201 (talk) 11:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Helper201: It creates a word break opportunity, meaning that if the text has to wrap, it'll wrap over in that position. i.e. yes. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

  @ItsPugle:If you want to give it a go of implamenting Wbr instead I'm happy to see if it works on my end :) Helper201 (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Helper201: I've gone ahead and given it a whirl. Let me know what you see :) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

  @ItsPugle: Democratic socialism is now splitting over two lines again for me :/ Helper201 (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

  @ItsPugle: now plainlist has been added we could add class=nowrap to that if that would work out better than nowrap on its own. Can you confirm that nowrap is actually causing an issue in this instance with stuff like having to scroll horizontally with how minimally it widens the infobox? I'm open to any other solutions you can think of. Helper201 (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Helper201: Yeah, look, I think we're broadly out of options here, so I'll go ahead and restore {{Nobr}} on democratic socialism :) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)