Talk:Jacqui Lambie Network

Addition of populism in the infobox

Per WP:BRD, I am opening a discussion as to whether "populism" should be listed as an ideology in the infobox. Personally, I am of the opinion that it should, as it is abundantly clear per WP:COMMON that a referral to the ideology of "Tasmanian populist Jacqui Lambie" is obviously sufficient for the ideology of the Jacqui Lambie Network, and that this is in no way a violation of WP:SYNTH. Pinging Helper201 and The Drover's Wife, as they have bothh edited on this issue. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Yep. The entire party is an electoral vehicle for Jacqui Lambie the person, so the suggestion that it could have a different political stance is absurd. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. This breaks WP:SYNTH. A political party naturally requires cooperation and work from more than one person and will inevitably be influenced by others that work and hold positions in the party to some degree. Even if a party is largely influenced by the views of a particular person, it doesn't mean the party is a 100% one-for-one representation of that person's views or outlook. This aside the term "populism" is in of itself very vague as an ideology anyway. Helper201 (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

If we were to accept this argument we'd also have to remove "Veterans' rights" from the infobox, (which we should probably do anyway) since the articles sourcing that do not make any mention of the Jacqui Lambie Network, only Lambie herself. Indeed, they do not make any mention of support for Veterans' rights being a particularly important belief of Jacqui Lambie herself, while the Bloomberg article at the very least does that. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

This seems to have far more to do with Helper201's ideas about what a political party "naturally" requires than this case in particular. The Jacqui Lambie Network is one of quite a few small Australian parties that focus entirely around their leader/founder and have no particular ideology distinct from that of the founder (which has made them very prone to splits when elected members ideologically break from the founder). This specifically happened in JLN when Steve Martin assumed Lambie's seat during the section 44 crisis and with Lambie temporarily out of parliament, immediately defected rather than follow Lambie's ideological line. (These parties, JLN included, have tended to learn from experience and mainly select their own staffers for winnable seats so as to have people who overwhelmingly agree with their own views.) Lambie has been extremely outspoken about veteran's rights - she is a veteran, it's probably the issue she's been most personally committed to driving, and it's absurd to suggest that it's not a stance of her party. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

+1 to equating Jacqui Lambie with JLN in sources. No independent source ever really separates JLN as an entity distinct from Jacqui Lambie. Australia has so many personality-based minor parties with political views that are indistinguishable from the leaders. If you ever look at their party constitutions, they effectively only give power to the leader or the parliamentarians (in effect the leader). Very few are actually political parties with any policy or decision making powers outside of the parliamentarians. Catiline52 (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources stating it, then we should probably have it in the infobox. See my comment in the social conservatism discussion below. TarnishedPath^talk 12:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Social conservatism in the infobox

Starting a discussion here as to whether there are enough reliable sources to put social conservatism in the ideology section Smashedbandit (talk) 08:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The claim was cited in the source. I don't see your problem. There's nothing against using a source because it makes a "passing mention" of whatever it is being used to support. A consensus is not needed before the addition of a cited claim and no one has reasoned any objection to this claim. Its existed within the infobox for months before you've fought to remove it. Helper201 (talk) 08:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Because it is a misleading claim that the JLN is a socially conservative party, nowadays Lambie is actively campaigning against right wing ideas and even in the past made headlines by championing women's rights. There is also zero mention of social conservatism within the article and I can't find any other sources that make the claim. Smashedbandit (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The source says it in the Jacqui Lambie Network section (right under the photo of her and her billboards/signs). It’s not relevant what editors’ opinions on sources are, we go by what reliable sources state. Helper201 (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Smashedbandit, please read my above comment and look at the Jacqui Lambie Network section of the source. To quote the source directly, "The former senator’s party is economically leftist and conservative on social issues, like its leader, Jacqui Lambie."

Smashedbandit please read the above. Helper201 (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

i agree it should not be in there, Lambie doesn't promote socially conservative policies, the only thing claiming this is a single article from the guardian

Seriously just go through the parties website, there's nothing on it Auspol4 (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

We go by what reliable third-party sources state. Helper201 (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

that reliable source you claim doesn't even elaborate how the party is conservative, it just says it is, how is this reliable Auspol4 (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing within Wikipedia's guidelines that say reliable sources need to explain how they came to their conclusions. The Guardian has a consensus as a generally reliable source to use on Wikipedia to cite claims. Helper201 (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Does the party call themselves conservative? no

Does their website outline any socially conservative policies? no

This is blatantly misleading readers, and the only justification you have is that an article written by a centre-left news company that was published years ago.

This article itself isn't even about the lambie network, it's an article that very briefly touches on minor parties running in the election

You can bet that when the author inserted his excerpt about the JLN, he wasn't expecting it to be taken as the golden standard that the JLN should be known as a socially conservative party

It's just complete dishonesty, and I don't see how you could genuinely believe the party is socially conservative Auspol4 (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

As I stated before, we go by what reliable third-party sources say. That takes a priority over self-descriptions. If you have a problem with that seek to change how Wikipedia works. Whether or not the article is about the subject or "briefly touches" on it is irrelevant in regards to whether or not it can be cited as a source. Helper201 (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

If it's referenced to a reliable source it should probably stay unless there are other reliable sources contradicting the claim (in which case it would be best to have some sort of discussion analysing which source is more correct). Ideally we would want academic sources from subject matter experts for claims about the ideology that a subject subscribes to, but I don't think that's very realistic with minor political figures/parties. TarnishedPath^talk 12:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Jaycoopersydney conflict of Interest

As was revealed here, Jaycoopersydney, a major editor on this page, is a employed advisor of former JLN senator Tammy Tyrrell. As such, do we think its appropriate to simply revert any further edit he may make on this page? DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@DeadlyRampage26 take this to WP:COIN. Please don't suggest disruptive behaviour like reverting an editors edits with no consideration of the edit itself unless the editor is a sock puppet. TarnishedPath^talk 12:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't suggesting it, simply asked if it would be appropriate. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Short answer is no. It may be appropriate to bring them before noticeboards if they continue editing when they have a COI, but it is not appropriate to revert their edits on site merely because they have a COI. TarnishedPath^talk 03:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)