Talk:Liberal Party of Australia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Update for info box

Im updating all info boxes for the political parties represented in the Australian House of Representatives. Does anyone object to replacing the current info box with the one presented below? GJGardner (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Party of Australia/Archive 2
150px
Leader	Tony Abbott MP
President	Alan Stockdale
Deputy Leader	Julie Bishop MP
Founded	1944
Headquarters	Cnr Blackall & Macquarie St Barton ACT 2600
Ideology	Conservative liberalism, Liberal conservatism, New Right
Political position	Centre-right
International affiliation	International Democrat Union
Colours	Blue
House of Representatives	54 / 150
Senate	32 / 76
Website
http://www.liberal.org.au/
Politics of Australia Political parties Elections

Liberal national

Do the Liberals and Nationals ever compete with each other in elections? If not, in what sense can they be two parties? BillMasen (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Organisationally the two are legally separate entities and they have distinct parliamentary parties. They do compete in a number of seats, both "open" seats (usually rural) where the sitting MP is retiring and both parties try to succeed. See for instance the Gippsland by-election, 2008 when both parties contested a National vacancy. Also they compete in states where the Coalition doesn't operate - the situation with the conservative parties in South Australia and Western Australia are both different from the eastern states and results in competing candidates in a number of House seats and separate tickets in the Senate - for instance they've stood in O'Connor in almost every election since 1980 despite the same Liberal MP holding the seat for all that time. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Lower house seats held - not 72

Surely we cannot be putting seats held in the infobox as 72 for the Liberal Party of Australia... the coalition has 72, the Liberal Party does not. Timeshift (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The LNP is the Queensland division of the Liberal Party, so how come their 21 seats aren't added in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.178.160 (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've already made this request that the Liberal National Party of Queensland article infobox be fixed up to have 22 seats but nobody seems to have taken notice. It would be good if someone can fix the LNP infobox up. Timeshift (talk) 07:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"THE THINGS THAT MATTER"

This is a party that Matter in regards to it legendary history. --(Keating 1991 (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Keating 1991)

Expansion

After working through a few Australian history articles, I kept referring back to this one, but found it didn't cover much content - so I've expanded. Please review/edit/expand as appropriate.Ozhistory (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Not '44' seats

The infobox on the main page is listed as the Liberal Party only having 44 members in the House of Reps. This is incorrect. The LNP is the Queensland division of the Liberal Party. Why are there 22 members not listed here?144.136.101.238 (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

State Houses infobox

RE: "9 October 2011‎ Timeshift9 Undid revision 454622330 by AlexanderFrancis disagree with questionable addition to infobox, please form consensus on talk" Timeshift9, the responsibility actually falls to you to form consensus against my change, IAW WP:consensus "In most cases, the first thing to try is an edit to the article" As nothing had been mentioned in talk against such a move I decided to make the change. While I am willing to accept the possibility that I made a small error in the calculations I do not believe that the edit is in itself a "questionable addition" after all the Liberal Party is represented in the states not just federally. As it would apear that there is absence of regular discussion on this page it will probably end up being a discusion between the two of us. As such, what are your issues with my addition?AlexanderFrancis (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It was this edit by AlexanderFrancis that added two items to the infobox: "State Upper Houses" and "State Lower Houses" (with the total numbers of seats held in all states). The normal procedure for a disagreement like this is for those supporting the change to explain why it is useful. One minor issue is that the information is not readily verifiable (I think), although it's just a calculation from verifiable data so is not technically WP:OR. The minor problem concerns editors needing to keep the data up to date while dealing with edits which change the values (what happens if someone changes "54/155" to "55/155"?). Perhaps this should be discussed at a suitable wikiproject? BTW the editor reverting new information does not have the responsibility for gaining consensus; it is the reverse. See WP:BRD. Also, the section heading should be something neutral like "State houses in infobox". Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok I take the point regarding BRD and the heading, i've changed it. I believe the information is readily verifiable, I didn't research it I just added a couple of numbers together, I could reference the home page of every Parliament in Australia. The reason I added this was I noticed it is in the Pages of the American Political Parties and I wanted to know how the Australian Parties matched up. Surely the problem regarding edits is one common to pretty much every WP page?AlexanderFrancis (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if adding that info is an established practice (and not just a recent addition), an argument for inclusion here would be supportable (although what happens on this page is not dependent on other articles). I have not looked, but what about other parties in Australia? It may be helpful to approach one or both of WT:WikiProject Political parties and WT:WikiProject Australia. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It's because it's irrelevant. Who cares how many state seats a party holds nationwide? It has no meaning. We have a federal tally in the infobox, and state totals later on in the article. It serves no purpose. Timeshift (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, the significance of a political party's state seats is as important if not more than their federal seats, sovereignty is vested in the states equally. The infoboxes provide an easy to read summary of the organisation, and the number of seats in state legislatures is important information which directly relates to the influence of the party. As mentioned above, my rational for making the change was because it was information I wanted to know from Wikipedia and which was not available. AlexanderFrancis (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Timeshift on this one. I have never seen the total number of state seats referred to as a significant number - in fact I've never seen it referred to at all. The information on individual state seats is actually already on the page - further down they're set out in a nice table. Of course it's fair enough that you wanted to know the information, but it's pretty simple to just add the numbers together yourself; you will need to provide evidence that the total state seat number is regarded as relevant somewhere else as well though. Frickeg (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

We have one later on in the article for state seats. But to combine them in to one for a secondary bar graph in the infobox is pointless, it has no relevancy or meaning or implications. Timeshift (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Frickeg and Timeshift here - the federal seats are more important at a first glance. If you look at how other countries do this, Germany has this, UK has this, Canada has this and South Africa has this. Note the latter two don't even mention state/regional MPs. Orderinchaos 06:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the formal relationship between the Libs and the LNP in Qld?

(And with the Nats for that matter)

With all the excitement over the Queensland election, many people now seem to want to count Campbell Newman as a Liberal Premier. While that's a reasonable moral claim, do the Nats have a claim too? Or neither?

Saruman-the-white wrote in an Edit summary last night that the LNP is the Qld branch of the Libs. But the LNP was formed by a merger of the stronger National Party in Queensland with a smaller number of Liberal members. I would be genuinely surprised if those ex-Nats have abandoned their roots so much as to now say that they're part of the national Liberal Party.

So, is the Queensland LNP really a branch of the national Liberal Party? Does it really have no formal relationship with the national National Party? I'm confused. HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The LNP is registered federally as the state branch of the Liberal Party, which made things a bit awkward for us at the federal election. We ended up going with treating the LNP as a separate but affiliated entity. The federal LNP members continue to sit in either the Liberal or the National caucuses, much like the NT CLP. So technically, Saruman-the-white is correct: formally the LNP is the state branch of the Liberal Party. Just as we made an exception for the WA Nats, however, I'm inclined to think that treating the LNP just like the CLP (i.e. separate but related to both) is a better idea. Frickeg (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The lnp is the state branch of the liberal party. as such it should be treated just the same as the nsw or vic branch of the liberal party. it is officially the state liberal branch and campbell newman is a state premier of the state branch of the liberal party. there are no two ways about it. i have already inserted a note where he is mentioned to clarify that in qld the party goes by the name lnp. that is already taking a cautious approach and attempts to treat it as seperate when it is officially the qld branch of the liberal party would be misleading and fraudulent, not to mention constituting original research or pov counter to the official source. Saruman-the-white (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, so that's the formal situation, but does the federal National Party really make no claim nor take no credit for what has happened in Queensland? HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they do. And I also note that Warren Truss, an LNP member, leads the Nationals federally. As to Saruman's comments, it is clear that this is a special case; the LNP is obviously a very different entity to, say, the NSW or Victorian branches of the Liberals. They are registered as the state branch of the Libs by the AEC, but the Parliament website identifies LNP members with whichever party they caucus with. I also can't find anything on the LNP website that formalises its affiliation with either the Libs or the Nats, so if anyone does have something then that would be helpful. I don't think there's a problem with noting Newman's situation in the lead, but I'd much prefer to see it described as the "affiliated Liberal National Party, formed by a state merger with the National Party" or something similar. I don't believe there can really be much POV involved here either, as I don't see what difference it makes to how good or bad it is. When there are contradictory sources (as there clearly are here), we need to use some discretion. Frickeg (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I will change Newman's part in the intro to "affiliated Queensland branch, the Lib Nat Party" so that no one will object then. There is no question it belongs there though along with the other state premiers. Saruman-the-white (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no problems with the revised wording. It might be worth mentioning Newman (or at least the LNP) on the Nats' page as well, though. Frickeg (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Too much duplication

Why do we have what seems to be Menzies and Howard government and PM articles as entire sections in this article? It seems way too expansive, far more than the ALP article, and not enough about the structure. Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

On one hand, wikipedia is not limited, so length is not necessarily bad, especially given that articles on foreign parties such as UK con/lab, US rep/dem are significantly longer, and the ALP does have sections on "significant governments" - one for whitlam, one for keating, etc., which is similar. On the other, duplication is of course a very much a bother and a hindrance to whoever has to read it. I agree that the Menzies era and the howard era should indeed have their own subsections under history (as the menzies era was the party's founding era, and went on for 20 years, and the howard era went on for not too much shorter counting opposition and was very significant both for australia and for the liberal party. i would not be opposed to sections based on larger time periods as with the ALP article however - for example, one for menzies, one for post menzies (late 60s through fraser), one for howard and abbott (these could be in one section as they do not warrant two distinct periods and there has not been time for significant changes in this amount of time). Saruman-the-white (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Street-level detail of governments belong in the articles of the PM as well as the PM government articles. I think this article could learn from the recent changes to the ALP article. Readers don't want this page for a day to day diary of the PM, they want to know where the party came from, what it stands for, what it's done, and party structure. I think the ALP article does these four things rather well. I think this article does only the first two right, and strays way too far in to irrelevance. Timeshift (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Structurally, the Lib page is superior to the ALP page because the Lib page provides precis of the significant periods in Lib history, in which reforms and general political maneuverings are able to be broadly discussed. In contrast, the ALP page has been recently re-constructed by Timeshift with some useful historical info, but a structural weakness, which allows for only a brief historical overview, followed by an extended section which he wants to include only "labor reforms". The consensus on the talk page there seems to be that this will allow partisan editors to simply weed out any broad, less flattering discussion of labor history and present misleadingly glowing detail on only certain Labor leaders' in relation to their records on reform. Leaders like Whitlam benefit inordinately from such a structure, because Timeshift can rule out the breathtaking economic mis-management and ministerial scandals as "irrelevant" to the reform section and "too detailed" for the historical overview, thus presenting an entirely misleading portrait of the Whitlam Government and Labor history. The separation into historical overview and "reform" is unnecessary and the ALP article should be brought more into line with the Lib structure: a simple, chronological historical precis of significant periods in the party's history which combines a) some general historical context, b) evolution of party philosophy c) notes significant legislation, d) discusses political machinations such as leadership rivalry (like Gorton Fraser/Fraser Howard Peacock etc) d) remains brief. Observoz (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, having one section on history then another section on notable PMs straight after seems more like duplication than anything to me, and an unnecessary complication. Saruman-the-white (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the Liberals are historically and currently more economically scandalous than Labor, but that's all opinion, it is not measurable. Acts are. These articles are not for historical scandals, they do not last. They belong in the articles of the PMs and their government articles, here is too much. Things that parties passed, they last, and they should be included. And we should all remember that reform doesnt necessarily = good. Take any example from the ALP page - some people will support any chosen reform, some people will not. To say it is a glowing endorsement of the ALP says a lot IMHO. The comments made almost seem like an admission that the Libs haven't done much. Timeshift (talk) 06:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Because an Act "passes" doesn't mean it "lasts". What a weird thing to write.Observoz (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Furthermore, "scandals" as you term them can deeply significant in political history. Whitlam's approach to economics continues to shape a whole generation of Australians in their views towards Labor and the fact that Whitlam had to sack his own treasurer and deputy prime minister is actually quite unusual. Your text for example, notes another unusual point: it rightly notes as an historical aside that Whitlam was the only PM to be sacked by a GG. Why do you make that comment? It's not an Act, is it? It's HISTORICAL CONTEXT. Your arguments do not bear scrutiny.Observoz (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

First point - no, but unlike scandals, it tends to be the rule rather than the exception. There's scant an Act which is reversed wholesale. Second point - Whitlam was sacked, this means he was no longer the PM. This is not a scandal, it's a fact. It's as relevant as the election wins or anything else. Timeshift (talk) 06:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Timeshift, as a lawyer I can tell you that many, many Acts passed by former governments have their substantive effect neutered or amended away. It does not take much. Using numnber of Acts passed is not a useful measure, especially considering the highly negligable or trivial effects that an Act (the vast majority) have compared to some other Acts. There is a reason that you wont see mentions of how many acts passed under a PM or president or efforts to translate this into how "reformist" (meaningless) a government is. It is simply isn't an accurate or useful measure. Then again, I will hardly rain on someone's parade and remove it if someone spends their time putting such references in - it doesn't much bother me. I am merely corroborating what Observeroz has said, and would further add that the "notable labor pm's" section in the ALP article seems to add arbitrary and complex duplication. Saruman-the-white (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok Timeshift, I'm not sure where you draw the line between "scandal" and "fact", but you do seem to be admitting (after much prodding) that historical context beyond mere "acts" and "reforms" CAN BE relevant to sections headed "notable Labor Governments". Hallelujah. Observoz (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Observoz - Each govt section says how the govt lost power. Whitlam lost his by sacking. Mountain molehill. Saruman - invariably, Acts get amended. Even WorkChoices got amended. Rarely anything is ever completely reversed, let alone stay reversed in a wholesale manner. Acts tends to set the future trajectories of policy. I doubt there's much if any in the section which doesn't have a bearing on Australian historical or modern society. Timeshift (talk) 07:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Timeshift - you are ignoring my meaning (i see why you choose the name "shift"). Please read the text above more closely. Nevertheless, you are still admitting that as each section shows how a government lost power etc, then it's a history section, not just a "reform" section.Observoz (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Each govt section has brief incoming and outgoing information, but it is still in essence a section about reform. You're trying to find something that isn't there, give it up. And please give up on the personal attacks too. Timeshift (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Classical liberalism

An editor (Timeshift) has suggested a consensus discussion on inclusion of the term Classical Liberalism in the party ideology description in the infobox. He/she says "classical liberalism" is "not accurate". Lately I've been doing some work on the history of Aus political parties on wikipedia, and I find that the term is often used by Liberals to describe their philosophy. Some samples:

• The Party's own website has an outline of beliefs beginning as follows: "We believe in the inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples; and we work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives; and maximises individual and private sector initiative" which sounds very like the definition of classical liberalism on wikipedia.
• Robert Menzies, the philosophical godfather and founder of the party often used the language of classical liberalism and quoted John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" in his The Forgotten People speeches as follows: "“(T)he sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection. … (T)he only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” It's all very classically liberal and according to Senator George Brandis, Menzies described this as “a pregnant truth … a good rule, not only of common law but of social morality.”
• The Barry O'Farrell wikipedia article for instance, has him identify himself (along with party founder Robert Menzies) as a "classical liberal". Former Federal leaders like John Gorton, Malcolm Fraser and Malcolm Turnbull would all presumably identify as classical liberals (in the context of their times) and George Brandis traces Liberal origins to the liberal Alfred Deakin.
• John Howard, who once described himself I think as the most conservative leader the party had had, also looked to a classical liberal component at the heart of the Party: "Menzies knew the importance for Australian Liberalism to draw upon both the classical liberal as well as the conservative political traditions. ... He believed in a liberal political tradition that encompassed both Edmund Burke and John Stuart Mill – a tradition which I have described in contemporary terms as the broad church of Australian Liberalism"

That all says to me that "classical liberalism" can and should be included in the infobox as a party ideology. Ozhistory (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There's little doubt that Menzies' original intentions were for the party to embody classical liberalism, but I'm sure that many commentators would argue that it has moved a long way from that position. We must also remember that what politicians say for the public record is more marketing than reality at times, so what modern politicians say about themselves is never a good source. What we need to find how quality, reliable, independent sources describe the party today. HiLo48 (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Charles Kingston was a classical liberal. The Liberal Party of Australia is not. There is more of an argument to be made for Menzies seeing as he was a Keynesian and ran a budget deficit every year of his Prime Ministership, but classical liberalism is far more than this... infact, these two traits in some ways is a further argument against classical liberalism, depending on your perspective of it. Timeshift (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Classical liberalism is a form of libertarianism that has not existed since the 18th century. The closest you will see today is Texas Congressman Ron Paul. The liberal party is NOT classical liberal. — Preceding unsigned Saruman-the-white (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct, the party is not classical liberal. Timeshift (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

No, Timeshift9, you are wrong. Classical liberalism is not a "form of libertarianism". Libertarianism prescribes states no definite role, while classical liberalism emphasises government's role in maintaining law and order. Menzies having Keynesian economic policies speaks nothing of his ideology as well, Keynesianism's emergence and Menzies term coincided following the Depression. It is no surprise his party at the time experimented against ideology. Saying Ron Paul is close classical liberal is also wrong and shows misunderstanding ideology. Ron Paul is libertarian because he he holds, and speaks, against the government. Again, he affirms government no prescribed role. Classical liberal thinks such as Smith though affirm government has roles maintains law and order and tradition. Saying classical liberalism has not existed since the 18th century is not correct either. Sometimes people say modern classical liberals are "neoclassical liberals", but the ideology is still nonetheless. The political theory continues influencing economics too, neoclassical economics is the standard analysis taught even. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.255.209 (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Latest edits

There is way too much POV in the way the text is written, and assumes to compare to social liberalism. It's too broad-a brush. Timeshift (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I would thank timeshift9 to stop displaying ownership tendencies in reverting the minor tidyup and fleshing out of the intro when i have already reverted the sidebar ideological categorisers at his last suggestion. If he believes something is POV, kindly tell me precisely what is "way too POV" rather than attempting to revert my whole edit, as an edit to tidy language and flesh out intro such as that does NOT require consensus. If you have any specific claim that you think is POV (although i am quite sure the entire intro consists only of facts), kindly edit that specific claim or tell your specific objection rather than wholesale reverting everything because of some objection you personally hold. The term social liberalism was only used to explain australian usage of the term "Liberalism" (not the capital L) as opposed to its usage in the US and UK, where it refers to social liberalism (ie Democratic party, Liberal Democrats, etc). As this is an important point which naturally will result in confusion for overseas readers, naturally if you think there is a better way to describe the term's usage (maybe see the article on aust liberalism?) you could change that part specifically to a different way, if you favour some term such as "modern liberalism", etc. instead. Saruman-the-white (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, timeshift9 needs banning from reverting edits because he continually reverts to an incorrect ideology position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.255.209 (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this page due to protracted edit warring over the political position and ideology labels. Here's a novel idea: Why doesn't someone do some research and find out how the party is labeled in the preponderance of reliable, secondary sources? Start with The Economist and work from there. I'd also advise a review of WP:LEAD; you shouldn't be calling the party centre-right or right-wing or anything else in the infobox and lead unless it's covered and sourced in the body. Trouts all around. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

See talk section above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk • contribs) 09:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You have to submit an unblock request. 149.135.147.22 (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Newspaper "Liberal News" without article

We don't have these on other political party infoboxes. What's the point? Timeshift (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there's no point listing a publication that we can neither read nor read about. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

IP(s)

Can the IP(s) please take stock of the fact that this article has just come off a long-term lock. If the far-longer-term status quo is to be changed and it is contested, thorough consensus is required, and that certainly has not been achieved. Liberal and Conservative are the appropriate NPOV terms to describe the party. South Australian state election, 2006 and Liberal Movement are but two articles... FEATURED ARTICLES... that have undergone thorough review and have been approved as the encyclopedia's best by a large number of the community. Even the Liberals call themselves a liberal conservative party. New Right is a common term through the world (see NZ and UK in the article amongst others) that are generally used to describe these sorts of parties who have heavily embraced economic rationalism since the 1980s, and is the most NPOV way of saying it. Australian Liberalism would just be a rehash of Liberalism in Australia with no underlying theory, just a hodge-podge of POV. We also need to be mindful that the articles are for a global, not local audience. Some of the terms proposed would have zero meaning to overseas readers. Liberal conservatism/conservative liberalism more readily identify the ideological strain of the Australian Liberal Party more than any other. Removing ideology alltogether is not an option, it exists on all political party articles. Timeshift (talk) 06:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, the IP(s) don't appear to be listening. Perhaps a re-lock of the article is in order. Timeshift (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Not listening. Not talking either. HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Unlock?

Considering the sock has been perm banned and the block still hasn't been removed, can we get the article unlocked? Timeshift (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to submit an unblock request. You causes the issue here though, denying responsibility probably isn't accelerating the process here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.255.209 (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No, socks cause issues. I fix them. By the way, not very transparent. I'd hope that there's not another edit war over ideology in the infobox, otherwise maybe the article is better locked. What do you think? Timeshift (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This IP is shared. I have on idea who edited its talk page, but I did not do it.

As the operator said, review the policy on what the box should contain. There is no need for silliness here. People have already made suggestions and, if nothing else, the box can simply be made empty.

There is no "ideological war" either, I am not politically active. I study politics, but am no partisan. If you are talking about "ideological war[s]", that probably represents your motivation. There is no sense projecting it onto me though. All it shows is you should think more carefully about what you say/do.131.217.255.209 (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Then perhaps don't lie and say that I caused the issue and denied responsibility. Quite simple, really. Timeshift (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not the one who said you caused the problem; the operator who made the block cited you (Timeshift9) and Frickeg as the issue. Your self-awareness seems poor here. There is no room for self-righteousness either, your behaviour effects other people. Many users read Wikipedia. Please think this through more carefully. 101.172.85.81 (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

That was before everyone else realised what I had already - and once the sock was found, I was congratulated. Thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah... I missed that. Who was the "sock"?

The operator still said you and Frickeg caused the block though. 131.217.255.209 (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, don't see any congratulations going on, after reviewing the page and still see users complaining about you. I would still like to know who the sock was though. 131.217.255.209 (talk) 10:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Just read more... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Welshboyau11#Blocked_for_an_indefinite_period was a "sock" then. You mistakenly posted on that page that this IP belongs to him though. There are a lot of edits from this IP because it is a shared IP among a large bunch of students and all. That is about it. I am not Welshboyau11 though, no. Operators could tell that anyway, presuming they can see what IPs accessed the banned account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.255.209 (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish. I felt the justice. Yes I did. :) Timeshift (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Prime Minister Update

The list of captioned images along the right-hand side border should be updated to include a photo of Tony Abbott and the caption 'Tony Abbott, Prime Minister 2013-Present'.1.178.79.51 (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox information

I updated the infobox information so that it is consistent with articles relating to other Australian political parties. I removed the "Senate Leader" and "Deputy senate leader" info, and also removed Tony Abbott's and Julie Bishop's portfolios/positions; as well as "The Hon." as it is a little overkill to have them there, don't you think? 101.160.16.144 (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism, according do the definition given by Wikipedia, "is a political philosophy whose advocates support economic liberalizations, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation, and enhancing the role of the private sector in modern society."

Since being elected, the Coalition has signed a free trade agreement with South Korea, and agreements with India, China and other nations are on the way. Deregulation? Repeal day where more than 10,000 regulations were repealed, WorkChoices. Privatization of Telstra, possible privatization of Australia Post. Enhancing the role of the private sector has always been a policy of the Coalition.

Surely, in the ideology section, Neoliberalism should be mentioned, as Neoliberalism strongly represents the policy of the Liberal Party of Australia.

It's not for we editors to decide such things. That would be original research, which is not allowed. We need to have an independent, reliable source telling us that the Liberal Party of Australia is neoliberal.

And please sign your posts. HiLo48 (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Position

There are multiple sources that suggest that the Liberal Party is Right-wing rather than just Centre-right. -http://politicalcompass.org/aus2013 -http://www.actnow.com.au/Opinion/Whats_the_difference_between_left_and_right_wing.aspx -https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/09/18/abbo-s18.html -http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/~mongoose/quiz/parties.html -http://books.google.com.au/books?id=DVaxUHdpYOoC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=is+the+liberal+party+of+australia+right+wing&source=bl&ots=MDAGnqwP_l&sig=2CPdmnRleK6GcOaVmukXSmy8GzY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HIZUU6y8CsiAkQWeuIHwAQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAjgU#v=onepage&q=is%20the%20liberal%20party%20of%20australia%20right%20wing&f=false -http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3667104.html -http://www.aussiebushadventures.com/blog.php?id=74

These sources are good and reliable, which is why the infobox should say Right-wing.Andreas11213 (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

They are not "good and reliable". And you know perfectly well that you can't re-add disputed contributions without YOU seeking consensus HERE and then once consensus is reached, ONLY then can you re-add it. I'm getting really sick and tired of your flagrant disregard for WP policies. Timeshift (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, one post from Andreas does not make a consensus. I'm sure I could find all sorts of other sources that said all sorts of other things about the Liberal Party. You have obviously cherry-picked. And I'd like you to explain what purpose is served by having a simplistic label in the Infobox, when the party's position varies dramatically over time and with who is making announcements. HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, all you have said is that you are "sick and tired of me" and that I have "cherry picked". You have given no reason as to why the sources I have provided are not good enough and are not reliable. There is no source that says the Liberal Party is a Centre-right party, yet I can find at least four sources that suggest it is a Right-wing party, all sources that are reliable. I don't understand why you are so against having the political position as "Right-wing", I have found four reliable that suggest that that is the case yet all you come up with is "They are not "good and reliable"." and "I'm sure I could find all sorts of other sources that said all sorts of other things about the Liberal Party." Until you can come up with a valid argument as to why the sources are not reliable and why the political position should remain Centre-right rather than Right-wing, I believe it should remain Right-wing. Andreas11213 (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I said i'm getting sick and tired of your flagrant disregard for WP policies, amongst other things, like that your sources are not reliable. HiLo said you cherry picked. You're insisting on your version that is not the status quo and it is disputed. Therefore you need to gain consensus. This isn't your encyclopedia where what you say goes. First, where does it say "Liberal Party is right wing" in your sources. Second, the sources are not WP:RS. Timeshift (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Centre-right is not the status quo! There is no source that says that the Liberal Party is Centre-right! And it is only disputed by you and HiLo. No one else has had a say, because as usual you two dominate and whatever you say goes. Clearly you haven't read the sources I have provided if you need me to point out where it refers to the Liberal Party as Right-wing, so how would you know whether my sources are reliable or not. Maybe read them first before shooting your mouth off. Andreas11213 (talk) 05:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Centre-right is the status quo. Do you understand what the status quo is? The status quo is what was there before the disputed change came along. The disputed change is right-wing. It has been reverted, therefore you require talkpage consensus, not other editors. And it will remain the status quo until you get consensus. No one else has had a say because you haven't given it any time yet! MelbourneStar hasn't had anything to say but he did correctly revert you with "Rv; then wait for consensus. Follow WP:BRD" which is yet another example of your flagrant disregard for WP policies. Certainly a lot of people have had a lot to say generally regarding infobox contents in above sections. I've read the sources and most don't say the Liberal Party is right-wing. All the sources you gave are not WP:RS. Tell me, which one is an example of a WP:RS and i'll tell you why it's not. Let's start, i'll give you one. You think Socialist International website is a WP:RS? Timeshift (talk) 05:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

They are all WP:RS!

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/09/18/abbo-s18.html - "...Abbott was seen as so overtly right wing, and tainted by his key roles in Howard’s government..." Also it is in the title, "New Australian PM signifies further right-wing shift".

http://www.actnow.com.au/Opinion/Whats_the_difference_between_left_and_right_wing.aspx

"Right: Liberal Party of Australia http://www.liberal.org.au/" it refers to it as Right not Centre-right whereas it referred to the ALP as Centre-left; "Centre-left: Australian Labor Party http://www.alp.org.au/"

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=DVaxUHdpYOoC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=is+the+liberal+party+of+australia+right+wing&source=bl&ots=MDAGnqwP_l&sig=2CPdmnRleK6GcOaVmukXSmy8GzY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HIZUU6y8CsiAkQWeuIHwAQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAjgU#v=onepage&q=is%20the%20liberal%20party%20of%20australia%20right%20wing&f=false

"...There were very similar statements in the right-wing Liberal Party's Fightback! document..." Later on in the book there is more references to the Liberal Party as Right-wing

http://www.aussiebushadventures.com/blog.php?id=74

"...The Coalition consisting of two parties, the Liberals and the Nationals, is right wing. Despite their name , the Liberals are not liberal but are in fact a conservative party..."

Here are my sources, where are yours? Please tell me why these sources are not reliable. Andreas11213 (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Clearly you do not understand what a WP:RS is. Timeshift (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

There seem to be many things Andreas does not understand. If we are to assume good faith around his behaviour, it leaves us with an editor who is very difficult to communicate with in a logical and rational manner. In the past couple of days we've seen major problems with Edit summaries, 3RR breaches, and the above failure to understand what a reliable source is. I feel quite unwilling to even try to discuss this matter with him. HiLo48 (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Clearly I don't understand, so rather than trying to humiliate me, can you just explain it? Andreas11213 (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Where's their reputation for reliability and accuracy? Using World Socialist would be like using Andrew Bolt. ActNow? Aussiebushadventures? These websites have no reputation, let alone for reliability or accuracy. If someone created a website saying the Liberals were far-left and Labor was far-right, could I use that? ITS A SOURCE ISN'T IT! RELIABLE? SURE! :/ Timeshift (talk) 06:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed about the WSWS - not only are they not reliable for this, but they are also not neutral, which is even more important, nor do they claim to be. Of course they would say the Liberals are right-wing, in the same way the Liberals describe the Greens as "far-left" or "extremist", but we don't use either as reliable sources. As for there being "no source for the Liberals being centre-right!!!", ten seconds on Google already found me several substantially more reliable sources in just the first few pages. Did you even look for any sources for the other point of view? Frickeg (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Ideology and Position in Infobox - a strong consensus to exclude them

I read the above three threads, and saw a strong consensus to not include either a Position or an Ideology, so I removed them yesterday. Today User:Andreas11213 has restored them with an Edit summary of "No consensus has been gained on talk page to remove this content".

In the above three threads I see only one editor other than Andreas who would prefer there to be something in the Infobox.

Are we at a stalemate? Do we really need to keep debating this? HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No, actually. If you go even further up there is a consensus that Centre-right and Conservatism and Australian liberalism be added in the infobox. We cannot keep having this discussion. We should leave it nice and simple as it was. Conservatism, Australian liberalism, Centre-right. Forget what the Republican Party Page says, 95% of political parties on wikipedia have the their ideology and position in the infobox. If it is sourced, then there is absolutely no reason as to why it should not be added. Left-wing extremists like Timeshift might say the party is Far-right, and "Political scientists" that keep popping up out of nowhere on this Talk age suggest it is either Centre-right or right. The infobox is used to summarize the main points/information in an article, and without the position and ideology of the party on this page, people would not be able to refer to the infobox for a quick fix of information, and it would be against what wikipedia stands for, which is to provide people with clear, accurate and unbiased information. If it is sources, there is no problem. It should remain as it is. Andreas11213 (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Andreas, but no. I don't know where you think the consensus is, but there really isn't one. I find a grand total of one registered user agreeing with you on this whole page (Saruman-the-white, ages and ages ago; Welshboyau was a sock). There is a clear consensus to leave the infobox blank, and I feel comfortable saying that this is now settled. Frickeg (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm not and please don't call me a left-wing extremist. I actually supported centre-left for ALP and centre-right for Lib, for the record. Timeshift (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Can all users who actually disagree with adding the ideology and position in the infobox simply make themselves known? No one has addressed any of the points I raised, I was simply told that I have no consensus to add something in the infobox that 95% of political pages have and that is fully and reliably sourced. Andreas11213 (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed far too many times. There is simply no consensus among editors of Australian articles that "position" is anything other than over-simplifying the situation, so I do not think we have them on the article for any Australian political party. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Andreas, while something must be sourced before it can appear in an article, being sourced does not mean it MUST appear in an article. Australian political parties tend to be pragmatic, changing position according to what they think their voters want, rather than ideologically driven.

No one has addressed any of the points I have raised regarding why the infobox exists and why the position and ideology should be added. If the page itself says the Liberal Party is a centre-right conservative party, why could it not be added in the infobox. No one has come up with a real reason as to why it should not be included. Andreas11213 (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes they have Andreas. You just don't think it's a valid reason. That's your belief - a subjective one. Timeshift (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The article says an awful lot more than "the Liberal Party is a centre-right conservative party". The quite large section titled "Philosophies and factionalism" discusses the matter extensively. It's complex and dynamic, and there is no single, fixed, party view on most issues. To try to summarise all of that in two or three words in the Infobox is quite inappropriate, and would be completely misleading. HiLo48 (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

That is ridiculous and absolutely false. There are parties that have existed far longer than the Liberal Party who have much more complex and dynamic ideologies and positions, yet their pages on wikipedia still include these things. I still maintain that if it is sourced, there is no reason it should not be added. If it was so complex to determine the ideology and position of the Liberal Party, why was it added in the infobox in the first place, and why was it kept there since its creation until only a few days ago when a user who claims to be a political scientist says there is doubt as to whether the Liberal Party is a conservative, centre-right party, contrary to many reliable sources that contradict this statement.Andreas11213 (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Who was that reply to? No indenting. No Edit summary. Incompetence on display? When you are so bad at conforming to Wikipedia conventions, after massive efforts by other editors to educate you, it really damages your credibility here. If the reply was to me, I disagree. And you are also quite wrong to say "...if it is sourced, there is no reason it should not be added". Right now I could very reliably source a lot of material about Tony Abbott's chat with a phone sex worker, but it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, does it? HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

How many times do I need to tell you Andreas - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We are talking about this article, not other articles. Timeshift (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that "all users who disagree with adding the ideology and position to the infobox" is precisely everyone except Andreas, and considering that this has been discussed uselessly for months and months, I think it's time to put this one to bed. Absent any new information, we're done here. Frickeg (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

In regards to your comment, "Right now I could very reliably source a lot of material about Tony Abbott's chat with a phone sex worker, but it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, does it?", of course it doesn't, are you stupid? But how does the ideology of the party and political position of the party not belong on Wikipedia. It is probably the most vital, important piece of information about a political party. In regards to "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We are talking about this article, not other articles", the reason the ideology and position was removed in the first place is because the "political scientist" said that pages like the Republican Party and Democratic Party don't have ideologies or political positions included in their infoboxes, so the Liberal Party shouldn't either. So if you want to bring up WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, then tell your political scientist friend that. Not all users agree that it should be removed, for example Timeshift, who said above, "I actually supported centre-left for ALP and centre-right for Lib, for the record." So clearly I do have some people in supporting me to retain the ideology and political position in the infobox. I would also like to say this; if in the article itself it says "...the centre-right Liberal Party competes with the centre-left Labor Party..." and "...Party ideology has therefore been referred to as liberalism, distinct from its meaning in some countries, but also as conservatism, which features strongly in party ideology...", then why not add it in the infobox. Let me repeat; if it is in the article, why not add it in the infobox? Lastly, if it is sourced, it should be added. I have been told on numerous occasions to find "reliable sources" before making changes, and you have no source that suggests the Liberal Party is not a centre-right party and is not a conservative party. Frickeg you said your self that you could find several substantially more reliable sources that say that the Liberal Party is a centre-right conservative party, so why did you want to include these sources before and not now. "I think it's time to put this one to bed. Absent any new information, we're done here." Really? This is not an totalitarian regime where a group of users get to make all the decisions and whatever they say goes. Wikipedia is free for everyone to contribute and have a say, so no, sorry, this one will not be "put to bed". Andreas11213 (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh stop it Andreas. I did support centre-left and centre-right but as i've since said I agree the infoboxes shouldn't contain it - i've been convinced. You really need to stop putting words in peoples mouths. And trust me - it will be put to bed and you will not be successful. I wonder how long it will take for you to accept it. And, don't call people stupid. At least you haven't continued to call people extremists. Timeshift (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again you have neither accepted nor denied any of my arguments, you have simply dismissed everything I have said without a reason. You have simply said "Whatever I say is right and whatever I say goes." No, that is not how Wikipedia works. Why don't you read what I have said and tell me why you disagree or think I am wrong. Andreas11213 (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It's already been stated countless times by countless users. Tell me, how many people are supporting your arguments? Timeshift (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually no Timeshift9, you haven't. All you have said is the US Political Parties don't have it, so neither should the Liberal Party, which goes against your [WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] argument. I support Andreas, as he raises some valid points. He is constructive, you are destructive. Come up with a real reason to take out a n important piece of info from the info-box. 60.230.102.227 (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

And that's your first edit, IP? Timeshift (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking precisely the same thing. That IP editor, agreeing with Andreas11213, popped up right after it was pointed out that nobody was agreeing with him. What a coincidence! HiLo48 (talk) 07:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Cool, you still haven't accepted nor denied any of my arguments, you have simply dismissed everything I have said without a reason. Why don't you get onto that? Andreas11213 (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Many reasons have been given. You apparently disagree. That's life. Why aren't you indenting your posts? HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

No not really. You have said something along the lines of "It is too difficult to decide what the political position and ideology of the Liberal Party is so we should not add it in the infobox." Well, no, it is not too difficults because there are several substantially more reliable sources according to Frickeg. So if there are sources that according to Frickeg were good enough to list the Liberal Party as a centre-right conservative party only a few weeks ago, why is it now ok now? Andreas11213 (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

That's actually not what I was saying at all. I was pointing out the sources that described it as "centre-right" in order to counter the idea that they were "right-wing", which I believe you were arguing at the time. Frickeg (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

But hold on, you just went against everything you have now said. You want to take the ideology and position out because you think it is too difficult to decide what is is, yet you yourself just said "I was pointing out the sources that described it as centre-right". Also, all of you have failed to come up with arguments against the points I raised. Clearly you have no real reason to remove the ideology and position out of the infobox. Andreas11213 (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I do. (And I know how to indent.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, because you were claiming that the sources said it was "right-wing". Also, where did I say I wanted to take it out because it was too difficult to decide what it is? I don't - if it comes to it, I think "centre-right" would be fairly well established. I do think it's needlessly simplistic, though, which is why I incline towards leaving it out. And frankly, all of the points have been responded to, again and again, ad nauseam, above. I'm sorry, but it's time to understand that, on this one, consensus is against you. Continuing to pursue this is a waste of your time and mine, and I, for one, will not be wasting any more on this. And, for about the fifty billionth time, please indent your posts. Frickeg (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Why must we have to deal with such a recalcitrant and intransigent editor? Timeshift (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been wondering that for some time myself. HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101670138 Would this be considered a reliable enough source to include Conservatism in the infobox?

You really don't listen Andreas, do you? We're not arguing about what should be their position in the infobox. We're arguing there shouldn't be a position in the infobox as it's too simplistic for what is too complex so is covered in detail in the article. The sooner you understand this, accept it, and move on, the better off we will all be. And please, sign what you write! Timeshift (talk) 06:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Liberal party ideology

There has been a slow-burning edit war for years now over the Liberal Party's "ideology". The Fe//lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/FederalPlatform.pdf] says that the party believes in "Liberalism", and then says that "Liberalism is not a fixed ideology but a broad-based political philosophy that relates a core set of enduring values to the changing realities and challenges that societies confront over time". As I have said a few times here, the Liberal party does not have a strict ideology, which is probably why so many editors have trouble pigeonholing it in the infobox. --Surturz (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see nothing in the Infobox. Let the article describe how the party behaves on various issues, and let readers decide the ideology for themselves. Simplistic one or two word clichés don't help anybody understand the party. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The only reason I can see for leaving an "ideology" entry is because if there isn't one, drive-by editors will keep adding it back. But I support its removal if there is consensus. ==Surturz (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I too am getting annoyed with the 'slow-burning edit war for years' on both this and the ALP article. But I think other major party articles in other countries would have the same issue too. What do they do? Timeshift (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The Liberal Party of Australia is clearly a conservative party. This page even says "...Party ideology has therefore been referred to as liberalism, distinct from its meaning in some countries, but also as conservatism, which features strongly in party ideology. The Liberal Party is a combination of economic liberalism and social conservatism..." So why would you say on the page it is a conservative party but not in the infobox? It doesn't make sense. Even former Prime Minister AND former leader of the Liberal Party John Howard said "...the Liberal Party became the trustee of both the classical liberal and conservative traditions. That is it combines "liberal" (market-based, pro-business, anti-union) economic policies with conservative social policies..." How can anyone possibly deny that the Liberal Party is a conservative party. Surely this does not need consensus. Andreas11213 (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I am trying not to contribute to the edit war here. I have added a cn (citation needed) tag for the "Conservatism" entry in the ideology section. --Surturz (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Andreas, you really must learn how to join a discussion, and not just make absolute, unilateral statements. Why do you want simplistic clichés, which cannot possibly describe the complexity of a party like this, in the Infobox? HiLo48 (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Should I assume nobody has noticed Coalition (Australia) ideology? :P Timeshift (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

My two cents. I don't think you can nail down an ideology to a party. Because you will find party policies reflect the spectrum of its members. So at any point in time the balance will change. Therefore each policy can be based on different ideology as time moves on. In other words I prefer actions to be presented as facts, so the reader can determine the ideology themselves. My two cents. CamV8 (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

As long as the infobox is not overflooded, it seems fine to just include multiple ideologies if each is attached to a reliable source. (I've just added one to help facilitate this.) That is how it done on other political party pages. It really should be no more than two or three ideologies anyway. --Precision123 (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the "Liberalism and and the Australian Federation" as a ref for the Liberal party's ideology.[1] The book is about Federation, not the Liberal Party. The modern Liberal party did not even exist at Federation. --Surturz (talk) 06:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, User:Surturz. Thank you for commenting. I noticed your edit was because you said "The book is about Federation, not the Liberal Party." That is true. I am not sure if you have access to the cited page from where you are, but if you or others would like to see the paragraph, that can be done.

Some other sources that we can discuss:

• [2]: "The Liberal Party of Australia (Liberals) consolidated previous liberal-conservative forces in 1945, combining elements of laissez-faire economic liberalism with small l social liberal and social conservative values. ... The party shifted significantly to the right, and over four terms of government it pursued socially conservative policies in industrial relations, education, Indigenous affairs, multiculturalism, drug policy, and asylum seekers."
• [3]: "It is even stated with confidence that the Australian Liberal Party is 'conservative,' although in this case political labels are misleading and the ideas of the Australian Liberal Party can only be understood within the liberal tradition."

Hope it helps. --Precision123 (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

"although in this case political labels are misleading" - EXACTLY! Distilling the philosophy of the Liberal party into one or two words ending in "-ism" is misleading. We should not do it. --Surturz (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that statement completely. I don't know what the proponents of a couple of -isms in in the Infobox think they are achieving. It's certainly not going to be an accurate picture of the party. HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

That would be the case about any party though (in regards to putting "ism" in the infobox). They are meant to be simplistic. I think it is perfectly fine here. As long as the words "conservative" and "liberal" appear somewhere there, it should be fine. Good descriptions follow in the lead and the body of the article anyway. --Precision123 (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. So why put an inevitably incomplete (and therefore inaccurate) description in the Infobox? Simplistic explanations are for simpletons. HiLo48 (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a space there in the infobox for an ideology. Other than the name, there is nothing especially unique about the ideological position of the Liberal Party -- and the description of the name and its origin is in the lead. I see no way for it to be ambiguous, at least any more so than all other political party pages. My vote is:

Liberal conservatism • Conservative liberalism • Australian liberalism (historical)

That's what we have sources for, so it should be fine. --Precision123 (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The only one above that I am indifferent about is "Conservative liberalism." That was recently added by another editor. But I think "Liberal conservatism" (or simply, conservatism) is sufficient, and "Australian liberalism (historical)" puts things in the context that we are looking for in regards to their origins and ideological history. --Precision123 (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Too much original research there, again trying to create a simple description for a complex party. It's inappropriate. And unnecessary. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS also applies here. That other parties have simplistic nonsense doesn't justify this article having it. My view on the Liberal Party is that it attracts people who want to run businesses that make profits at almost any cost to society, and who rabidly hate the word "union", in almost any context - trade unions, student unions, gay unions, etc. I reckon I could find sources on it. (And many other "ideologies" for the party.) I challenge you to put that into the Infobox! (I don't want it there.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW - anyone with decent manners, and who edits here in good faith, would not be changing the relevant section of the article while this discussion was still underway. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand much of your comments. As to your allegation of original research, completely untrue. Please review what that means. Taking issue with the structure of infoboxes generally is not the subject of this discussion. The fact that the party is called the "Liberal Party" does not mean we should not or cannot describe its ideology as conservative in the infobox, as is done by reliable sources. Indeed, the Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) and the Liberal Front Party of Brazil are both conservative parties and there is no issue with that description. In fact, not putting the ideological description in the infobox may lead to confusion. We have the sources, they are reliable, the description are true to the source (no original research). In addition, the origin of the name and ideology of the party is well explained.

Also, please keep your tone done. Relax, dude. Really. --Precision123 (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

My tone? WTF? You're the one who is changing the Infobox contents while this discussion is still underway. Grow some manners! And if you don't understand my comments, then maybe simplistic entries in the Infobox ARE best for you. HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, using sources normally is original research. It must be plagiarism, too? OK, great, thank you. --Precision123 (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Many people have written many words about the Liberal Party's ideology. I believe it's misleading to suggest to our readers that it can be accurately described in half a dozen words. You may find Wikipedia:Cherrypicking a useful read. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Some users are getting far too autistic-literalist about the party's name. Firstly, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and third-party references are what matters when categorising an organisation, not what it calls itself, or states is its aims in its statures, and so on. Secondly, most (if not nearly all) major centre-right political parties in the western world are in part liberal, influenced by liberalism - liberalism in the sense used outside North America of course, with particular emphasis on economic liberalism. A "Liberal Party" can of course be conservative, and the Liberal Party of Australia is a founder member of the IDU, a world union of conservative parties, and objectively appears to be a typical liberal-influenced 'Anglo-Saxon' conservative party.--Autospark (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

That would surely be the only union the party has ever approved of. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Clearly there are many users who want to keep the ideology and position out of the infobox, and the main reason for that is that they think that it "over-simplifies a too complicated issue" and that the Liberal Party "does not have an ideology or a position." Well, that in fact is Original Research. There have been multiple sources put forward, and I will admit, not all of them are completely reliable, but the ones that have been absolutely reliable have been arrogantly ignored by users such as Timeshift9 and HiLo48. There are so many reliable sources that suggest the Liberal Party is a centre-right, conservative party, some of which have actually been put forward by users who oppose the inclusion of the ideology and position in the infobox. It is time that you faced the fact that it is your opinion that the Liberal Party does not have an ideology, and that there are several reliable sources that suggest otherwise, and they must be given more credit than your original research. Andreas11213 (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The reliable sources should be used to address the political position in the article itself. That can then be done in a proper way reflected all the reliable sources. What goes into infoboxes is a quite different matter. We do not put everything with reliable sources there. There are good arguments to not have the political position there. Indeed I see consensus. I am not agreeing with the view that the Liberal Party does not have an ideology. I am just argueing that it should be discussed in the article not the infobox. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your point at all then. What difference does it make whether the ideology and position goes into the infobox. In the article is says the Liberal Party's ideology features economic liberalism and conservatism and that is is a centre-right party. Why is it such a big deal if you add it into the infobox as well. Will the world end? No! So what is the big deal? Andreas11213 (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes are for clear small amounts of information. In the article I expect a nuanced view of the political ideology which can not be simplified to fit into an infobox. Many people have been telling you this for months. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It won't be "simplified to fit into the infobox". How is moving one or two words from the article into the infobox changing and therefore simplifying the political position and ideology. What if someone can't be bothered reading the whole article and just wants to quickly flick through the infobox. It is in fact simplifying the infobox not to include the ideology and position. Why not include the ideology and position in its "simple" version in the infobox and the ideology and position in its "nuanced" vesion in the article? Andreas11213 (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem is that its not straightforward and simple what the ideology a party follows is. If the Liberals really followed economic liberalism then surely they would have identical policies to the Liberal Democrats, which they clearly don't. Moreover, if we include an ideology for the Liberals we'd have to include one for Labor as well wouldn't we? What would Labor's ideology be? Personally, I don't think it has one, aside from "winning elections at any cost". Colonial Overlord (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW my opinion has not been changed by recent arguments, so +1 vote to exclude an ideology entry from the infobox. --Surturz (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Active edit war

There now seems to be an active edit war over the ideology entry in the infobox. I propose that we halt further changes to this part of the article (and/or remove the ideology entry from the infobox) until a consensus can be determined here on the talkpage. --Surturz (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. --Surturz (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Some very undignified behaviour happening around this. It's time for a peaceful chat. HiLo48 (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support, edit war occurring again. Andreas knows better than to insist on re-adding his disputed contributions without WP:RS and WP:CON, and it seems he doesn't care either. Timeshift (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems Andreas wants to ignore this and have ideology in the infobox until a consensus is otherwise reached. Timeshift (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Centre left & centre right labels? - Talk on the possible removal of these labels from the labor and liberal pages?

Hello,

I was the person who originally removed the centre-left and centre-right labels from the labor and liberal pages.

Perhaps I should have started a talk page before doing so, but I still believe I have a decent case for doing such a change. I have therefore started this talk page to get a general consensus to see if such a change should occur.

I raise the general argument that the left-right spectrum is too ambiguous as there is much variation from country to country. Compare Australia to the US, to Thailand to Russia etc etc. There are also many different ideologies which stereotypically get associated with both ends of the spectrum and in the end it's nothing more than a blanket statement label that ends up discrediting both sides. Party ideology is a more accurate representation of each individual party as two 'centre-left' parties for example may still have differences in their ideas, ideals and policies and be far from similar, yet they still both end up getting lumped together as 'centre-left'. This discredits both parties. Perhaps this argument is too 'generalist' though, and as I don't want this to become a philosophical debate on the technicalities of definitions and perceptions, I therefore raise my next point. Which is:

More specifically, I also raise the question as to why do the Green party, Democrat Party and Republican Party pages not display this 'left-right' spectrum label if the labor and liberal pages do? If the labor and liberal parties must include this spectrum label, then surely the greens, democrat and republican pages also must include it? What differentiates the labor and liberal party pages from these other party pages (particularly the greens) to enforce such a spectrum label to be applied to them? Surely it doesn't seem fair to only apply this semi-randomly to some parties but not other parties? There must therefore be some sort of underlining systematic process going on that determines which pages get this spectrum applied to it and which pages do not, what is this system? If such a system cannot be rationally explained then one can safely conclude that the decision of applying such labels is semi-random and can therefore be manipulated by choice, based on a general consensus. If this turns out to be the case I therefore ask for such a manipulation (i.e. the removal) of the 'centre-left' and 'centre-right' labels to be given fair consideration, via agreement on this talk page.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.200.150.228 (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The infobox is used on wikipedia to summarize the main ideas/information of a page. This is why the party position and ideology needs to be added. If someone wants a brief explanation on the Liberal Party, this vital piece of information needs to be added in the infobox. The Republican Party and Greens both have their Ideology's listed, however their political position is more difficult to place on the political spectrum, which is why it has not been added. The Liberal Party's ideology is clear and sourced, and their position is easier to place on the political spectrum. The definition of Centre-left and Centre-right may alter slightly from country to country, however the variation is not massive. Andreas11213 (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree - I'm on this Talk page specifically because I was shocked by such a bold, unreferenced and innacurate assignment of these labels, and thought I'd better check here before changing it.

The former leader of the Liberal Party, Malcolm Fraser, has stated that both the Liberal Party and the ALP are far further Right than the iteration of the party that he led in the 70s. Last year he campaigned for the Greens Party, stating that they were the closest to the pre-neoliberalist Liberal Party of his era.

This would position the Greens as Centre or Centre-Right, The ALP as Right wing, and the current Liberal Party as Far Right. This would ring true to most people in the Canberra region (who, being in the capital, are often more up to date with the positions of the parties.) There is no way that the ALP could be characterised as Leftwing. They have a "Labor Left" but it is weak, and many members have bailed for the Greens. 121.45.213.22 (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The label "far-right" is usually reserved for authoritarian/nationalist/statist parties these days. Being economically very laissez faire is not labelled as "far-right". Phil070707 (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Reopening the debate on ideology and position

After being blocked from editing for almost 2 months, I had time to try and find reliable sources to suggest that the Liberal Party is a centre-right, conservative party. I think I was successful in doing so. If you open this link (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=YungugjvIaQC&pg=PA83&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) you will be taken to a page in the book "America and Americans in Australia. The page you are taken to is talking about the political parties in Australia. It suggests that the Liberal party is a centre-right, conservative party. This book was written by Dr David Mosler from the University of Adelaide. Educated at Stanford University, Dr Mosler is known for his publications, which include four books and articles published in British and Australian journals on American and Australian history and politics. The book was also co-written by Bob Catley, who is currently a lecturer at the University of Newcastle. Now, if you are telling me that this source is not reliable, you would be suggesting you know more than lecturers at two respectable Australian universities, one of which was educated at one of the best universities in the United States and the world. This would be quite arrogant. I also have another source, which describes the Liberal Party as "socially conservative". The source is (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-15/barns-wanted-genuine-liberal-party-for-political-scene/3667104). This was written by Greg Barnes, who regularly writes pieces for the ABC. This source was considered reliable enough for the Wikipedia page Conservatism in Australia, so I don't see how it could not be considered reliable enough for this Wikipedia page. So, hopefully now you can see the Liberal Party is in fact a centre-right, conservative party. I will of course not change the page until I have gained consensus, but I think it would be difficult to argue against these sources. Andreas11213 (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

As indicated in the section above the argument is not about what we put in the infobox, which would indeed require sources. The argument is about whether we want anything in the infobox. I agree with the view that putting anything there is over simplistic. However in the article itself we should have a more nuanced discussion of its position and the way it has changed since Menzies. I think most Australian editors are against you, as they see how complex political positions are. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe we're here again. Andreas, i'm sure we ALL agree the Liberals are conservative and a party of the right. But read what I wrote at the bottom of the last section above. You can find as many reliable sources as you want, it won't change anything: "We're not arguing about what should be their position in the infobox. We're arguing there shouldn't be a position in the infobox as it's too simplistic for what is too complex so is covered in detail in the article. The sooner you understand this, accept it, and move on, the better off we will all be." Timeshift (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? No. We have consensus here. Let's move on. Frickeg (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

My main issue with using labels like center-left, center-right & center is that what is considered center -left or center-right in Australia often bares no resemblance to what is considered to be those things in much of the rest of the world. In my view using such simplistic labels could lead to non-Australia readers having an impression that does not accurately reflect reality. AlanS (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Great, you may all think that it is too "simplistic" to label the Liberal Party as a centre-right, conservative party, but people who know a lot more about political positions and ideologies who have written books, such as Dr David Mosler, disagree. As I said before, it would be quite arrogant of you to suggest that you have superior knowledge to a lecturer who has obtained a PhD. How can you possibly say that it is too simplistic to label the Liberal Party as a centre-right, conservative party if there are a countless number of reliable sources that suggest otherwise. The Republican Party and Democratic Party of the United States have had similar issues, yet they still have ideologies listed in their infoboxes. It is disappointing that Wikipedia can no longer be counted on to be a good, informative website because the users who edit it think it is too "simplistic" to add something on a page many other people think is not. Andreas11213 (talk) 07:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"Many other people", you say, yet you have yet to find a single user who agrees with you. Writing a book is different to writing an encyclopedia, and at WP:AUP the consensus has been for some time that political parties should not have left/right ideologies in infoboxes. The US stuff is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but even then, Green Party of the United States and Libertarian Party (United States) do not include it in their infoboxes. This is the last time I'll be contributing to this discussion unless something new comes up, and I strongly suggest you move on as well. Sometimes, consensus is just against you. This is not a big enough deal to be wasting all this time over. Frickeg (talk) 08:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

FORGET USERS! THEY ARE NOT IMPORTANT! THEY ARE NOT LECTURERS AND DOCTORS AND PROFESSORS WHO ACTUALLY STUDY AND TEACH THESE THINGS! WHAT IS THE POINT OF HAVING SOURCES THEN?! Andreas11213 (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Since were're discussing what we have read, as a someone studying Honours in Political Studies, the academic consensus appears to be considered as out dated and inaccurate. I would argue their inclusion in the info box would be misleading, and can even misrepresent the parties historical position.

I think there's also an argument to be made that political parties, especially major ones like Labor or the Liberals, don't adhere to specific ideology or position on the left-right spectrum.The Tepes (talk) 07:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Please turn off your CAPS LOCK.

Andreas - I don't believe the Liberal Party actually has an ideology. It has policies, which have changed a lot over time. It has philosophies (sort of), which include things like a hatred of anything to do with unions of any kind, and low taxes (even when they have no money). Have you noticed how the one time hero of the party, Malcolm Fraser, thinks the party has gone off the rails. Was it a centre-right, conservative party when he was in charge, and still is now, or what? Whatever your answer, please explain. The modern big two parties in Australia each have a primary ideology of getting elected. But that would look silly in the Infobox. HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Users decide what should be included via WP:CONSENSUS, not lecturers or doctors or prefessors. Just because a WP:RS says something, doesn't necessarily automatically grant it for inclusion. But I think we're finally at least starting to get somewhere regarding Andreas' understanding of how wikipedia works. Timeshift (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious, that this is a centre-right, conservative party. Who disputes that? Phil. Phil070707 (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The article contains the following text "The party leans towards centre-right liberalism. Party ideology has therefore been referred to as liberal, and also as conservative, which features strongly in party ideology. The Liberal Party promotes economic liberalism". Note that this is more nuanced than just "a centre-right, conservative party". The discussion here however is not about what is in the article itself, but about what is in the infobox. The consensus is to have nothing in the infobox, and I support that. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

That's really ridiculous. The LPA is a fully-fledged mainstream conservative party. If we are not allowed to categorize it in the infobox, what about the British Tories with all the Thatherite, One Nation and even Powellite factions? To say nothing of the Republicans in the US with economic liberals on one hand, socially conservative Bible Belt faction on the other as well as all those Neocons and also Paleocons? LPA is much less complicated than that. Phil. Phil070707 (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not think the infobox should contain a political position for the British Tories or the Republicans in the US. Political positions are almost always too complex to easily summarise. However, I only have time to think about Australian political party articles. The other point too is that infoboxes get too large and cluttered. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)