Jump to content

Talk:Reason Party (Australia)

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

Research

[edit]

Bro I swear to god I tried adding in a controversy section and it got deleted anyone know why? User:hegy87


Someone should do more research and find out its structure, membership and stuff i think. Yili2943 (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are Party Officers on here who wont let that happen. --GregPoulton (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the wording seems like outright rhetoric, such as referring to laws banning Aboriginals from owning pornography as racist. Someone should go through and fix the page up so it's more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.206.25 (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err, this is the ASP's policies. If one of their policies has the word racist in it, then so be it. Timeshift (talk) 10:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@GregPoulton: there are party officers controlling this page?  Davtra  (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt there are "party officers" here. Nobody controls the page, it is the wikipedia community's page. The policies are cited as coming from their own webpage. There is nothing wrong with quoting policies. Timeshift (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Policies Section

[edit]

I have removed this section completely, as it is a pretty clear copyright violation, taken pretty much verbatum from the ASP website. The parties policies should obviously receive coverage, but it should be a prose summary of the website, and in the interim we can't have an explicit copyright violation sitting there.  -- Lear's Fool 12:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listing a party's policies verbatim I would challenge as being a "copyvio". Why not leave it there until such time as prose is written to replace it? You're letting the horse bolt a bit too early on this one. Some may find the policies to be extreme, to start editing it would create all sorts of POV issues. Verbatim is best IMHO - leave ASP policy interpretations to the reader. Timeshift (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improving article - October 2010

[edit]

I am undertaking a revamp of this article. Its copy/paste quality obviously leaves much to be desired compared to other political parties. It will be something of an on-going effort as I am ensuring that every edit is well researched as has ample citation to avoid any edit-war that political pages tend to attract. Feel free to comment on changes I am making and ideas about how the article should develop. Today I simply changed the introduction, as the previous introduction did not provide an abstract perspective of the party and its relative importance in the political landscape.

I am aware that including 2010 fed election result in intro somewhat duplicates information further into article. The 2010 fed elec section will be receiving more detailed information in a few days. Including the most recent federal result in intro provides perspective on party's relative importance, similar to how it is done of the Greens page. Unduespecificity (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question, surely this can't be the HQ for the Australian Sex Party? I've noticed the authorised by ........ but that would be the person authorising the website's chosen address. Any one have a source? Bidgee (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The two nicknames this new user has chosen and the fact they've only edited this page gives me somewhat of a cause for concern for a potential WP:COI here. I've dePOVified the article a bit and i'll keep an eye on it. Timeshift (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for feedback. The Fyshwick address is the address listed on the http://www.sexparty.org.au/ website as the party HQ and the address registered with the AEC.

Timeshift, interested in what aspects of my edit are POV? Was factual and I do not feel it exceeded similar information provided on, for example, Family First or Greens pages. My POV disclosure: I have been an anonymous page editor - small things here and there, but only ever very minor - for some time. I find the ASP interesting and in lead up to fed elec looked them up on wikipedia and found article very lacking in information, and quite poorly written. I like what they say, not a member however. Is that excessive bias?

What I see is two user accounts created with the sole purpose of editing this article. Other stuff exists is not a valid argument on wikipedia. No article needs to conform to the style used of another article here. Excuse me if I seem suspicious. Timeshift (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, account formed with intention of improving article. As someone who will admit to admiring the party, your suspicious oversight is appreciated to ensure any edits conform with objectivity given your concerns. Unduespecificity (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recognise dePOV'ing edits are commendable. The intro as it stands now, however, doesn't read well. You have chosen to exclude info regarding most recent election result, however, this information sits in intro for Greens+Family First. Is it not pertinent as way of showing relevance in current political situation? Unduespecificity (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The ASP did not win or lose any seats so their election results are not lead material. Again, other stuff exists isn't a valid argument - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Timeshift (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Unduespecificity (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Policies section (again)

[edit]

I have rewritten the policies section so as to replace the current section, which is a verbatim copy of the sex party website. Given that the section is currently a copyright violation of the website, I feel it would be best if there could be a colaborative effort to produce a prose summary of the section, but my attempt to start such a process has been reverted by Timeshift9 (talk · contribs), so I am bringing it here. Please note that I have raised this at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Australian Sex Party.  -- Lear's Fool 03:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are a political parties' policies copyright, and reproducing policies a copyvio? The logic is plainly silly. As you wish to change the status quo, please form WP:CON rather than your edits, of which the very first edit rudely stated do not revert, right off the bat. Timeshift (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Description of the Eros Association

[edit]

The lede has been changed a couple of times (from varying ideological angles) to state that the Eros Association is a lobby group for the "adult industry". I think that's a misleading description and implies that they represent far broader interests than they actually do. They're the lobby for the adult shop or adult retail industry, but that's it. That's basically the entirety of their membership, and it's those interests they politically lobby for. They have a very tiny amount of members that are strip clubs, escort advertising websites, or porn labels, but that amounts to an absolutely negligible proportion of their membership, or penetration into any of those parts of the adult industry - let alone the areas of the industry they have no members in at all. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Policies outdated and section is too short

[edit]

The only part of the ASXP's policies on this page that has been updated since the 2013 election is their stance on vaccination. In particular, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has been achieved and is no longer on their website as a policy. The policy section in this article is very short compared to the part that tracks the historical vote for the ASXP. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Australian Sex Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Australian Sex Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deregistration and "Reason"

[edit]

The Australian Sex Party were formally deregistered by the Australian Electoral Commission today at their own request. This would suggest (as some of their comments surrounding the change did also) that the Reason Party will be a new party, not a renaming of the Sex Party. Does anyone object to noting the deregistration and noting the Sex Party as a former party, and creating a new article on the Reason Party? The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the announcements have referred to a new party being formed, not just a name change. There have been rumours that some similar parties will also merge into Reason. However the new party's facebook page [1] suggests its name will be "Reason Australia" not "Reason Party". Ivar the Boneful (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Media reports describe it as a rebranding though, and that they will keep most of their current Sex Party policies - it appears to me to be more of a rebranding exercise (wanting to appeal to a broader base than those who vote largely for the amusing name) rather than shutting down one party and starting another from scratch. Patten said as much on Sky News not long ago. -- Whats new?(talk) 06:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it, the deregistration is proof that it's not a simple name change. If that were the case no deregistration would be needed. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also it seems the Australian Cyclists Party will be part of the new outfit, so I think it's fair to treat it as a new entity or even a kind of merge. Frickeg (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With further reports now available, it does seem the new party is, while of a similar makeup, is different and so I would agree that it may be best to start a new article -- Whats new?(talk) 23:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Drover's Wife: Did you create a new article on Reason as you suggested on 29 August 2017 ? It was agreed to by the other contributors Barney160 (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I'm not arguing otherwise. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Drover's Wife: Please point me to the new article. It seems the problem with this article is it used to be about the Sex Party Barney160 (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems someone moved the Sex Party page to this title, after which it has then been rewritten, and someone then recreated the Australian Sex Party page with its old content. This was a very strange way to deal with this. Given that Australian Sex Party exists as a separate article (which it should), this article shouldn't refer to anything that happened before August 2017 beyond explaining Reason's foundation without weasel word language. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Drover's Wife: More provocative assertions. I am seeking to make the article factual and correct. Given the other page for Sex Party and the amount of unrelated legacy here can we shut this article and start again ? Barney160 (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"someone then recreated the Australian Sex Party page with its old content". I moved the Sex Party content to it's own page due to Barney's objections that Reason was not the same as the Sex Party. I agree that the content prior to 2017 should be moved to the Sex Party page, I must have missed some content. On the topic, should the Reason Party be moved to "Reason Australia" since that's the official AEC name? Each state seems to have "Reason [State]". Catiline52 (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Easily sorted by just moving the pre-2017 content to the Reason article. I'd probably lean to keeping it at "Reason Party" because that's what they go by publicly (see website etc) but don't really care that much if there's support for moving it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Purging of Sex Party content

[edit]

@Barney160: Could you justify why references to the Sex Party keep getting removed? I understand this is a different party, but this page is a continuation of the previous party's content. For example, you removed the original founding date (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reason_Party_(Australia)&diff=prev&oldid=902186098) because it was the founding date of the Sex Party. You also removed the section about the Eros Foundation (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reason_Party_(Australia)&oldid=905419807). The Eros Foundation was affiliated with the previous Sex Party, but as the paragraph explained, it was not affiliated with Reason. You've also stated that the party being founded as the Sex Party before being renamed is factually incorrect (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reason_Party_(Australia)&diff=prev&oldid=902164128), is there sources for this? If Reason is unaffiliated, we should probably split the Sex Party content into a page of its own rather than purging its history. Catiline52 (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Sex Party content should be in a separate page. The page should not be a "continuation of the previous party's content". There is no "previous party" in respect of Reason Australia (RA). RA was incorporated on 8/5/2017 (https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/RegistrySearch/faces/landing/SearchRegisters.jspx?_adf.ctrl-state=jg9rqqe3u_4). Prior to that it did not exist. It then went through the process of being registered as a party finally achieving same on 30/8/2018 (https://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/party_registration/Registered_parties/). The membership has come from many sources including ex-Greens, ex-Labor, ex-Cyclist Party, ex-Sex Party and many others who had previously been unaligned with any party. Happy to help split the pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barney160 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the Sex Party content over to a separate page, however it might be a bit outdated. If any editors could help, it would be appreciated. Catiline52 (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Catiline52: Could you justify why you have now called Reason a merger of the Sex Party and the Cyclist Party ?

Sources seemed to indicate it was a new party made by the Sex Party + the Cyclists Party.[1] Are there more reputable sources that say otherwise? Catiline52 (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made edits to this article just now, since it makes no clear mention to its former name of the Australian Sex Party, and was working under the assumption that no such article existed, since a search of "australian sex party" wikipedia on Google reveals no indexed entry. However, on previewing my previous draft of this comment here, it seems that there is in fact such an article. It would probably be appropriate for my last 2 edits to be reverted, but should there not be some direct acknowledgement of the party's previous history, as there is for parties under similar circumstances? This comes across as if the article is being deliberately evasive, as if the party deserves special treatment. I would expect at least a mention of the old party along with a link, as this fact is of direct material relevance to the party's formation. Aphirst (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC) {{reply to|Catiline52} As I have indicated many times Reason Australia IS NOT formerly the Sex Party. Any suggestion to the contrary is patently untrue. Acquaint yourself with the AEC laws. I am the Secretary of the organisation and have been involved with it since the beginning. Barney160 (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Every single source on the establishment of Reason, including the statements of its founders, make clear that it was fundamentally formed out of the Sex Party, even if it wasn't technically a straight rename of the Sex Party but a deregister-and-reregister. That apparently there's a faction of the Reason Party that has decided to deny this is neither here nor there for our purposes: without any basis for that take in any kind of reliable sources it's not even arguable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Drover's Wife: I find it personally offensive that you would refer to my input as ridiculous. Firstly let me refer you to your own comments under Deregistration and Reason. What you said 29 August 2017 was correct so quite frankly I cannot understand why you are defending the lead paragraph of the article which says the party is formerly the Sex Party. With respect you are arguing against yourself and every other contributor who agreed with you in 2017. I take issue with the secondary sources that are being relied on. Citing a NYT article to support this position is not good enough especially when you consider that whoever made the change must have only read the headline which is often changed by sub-editors without the knowledge even of the journalist. In the article Fiona Patten is quoted as saying “To take us into federal Parliament and into federal politics we needed to be part of a different vehicle,” . This again supports your position in 2017 and also backs up my argument and that is the Sex Party and Fiona Patten is "a part of a different vehicle". Getting a party registered in Australia is a substantial endeavour. Renaming an existing party, such as the Sex Party, would have been the course to take if indeed the exercise was just a re-branding. You refer to "statements of its founders". Who apart from Fiona Patten has been quoted ? You have chosen to use the plural so I am keen to know. The President of the Cyclist Party wasn't quoted and he was one of the founders of Reason. I was not quoted and I was one of the founders of Reason. Neither of us were members of the Sex Party. A large number of Sex Party members declined invitations to join Reason Australia. If Reason Australia was a continuation of the Sex Party they would have been members by default. In respect to sources rather than relying on newspaper articles and quotes from just one of the founders I am quite happy to provide primary sources to support my position. As Catiline52, being a political science student would appreciate, primary sources are king when it comes to writing history.The Cyclist Party deregistered and so did the Sex Party. The Reason Australia application to the Australian Electoral Commission was supported by 500 Austalians, all of whom needed to be verified by the AEC. Only some of them were previous members of the Sex Party. Others were formers members of the Cyclist Party, defectors from other minor parties, disaffected ALP, Greens, and people who have never been a member of a political party before. Do I need statutory declarations from these people to state they were never members of the Sex Party ? Lastly I have no problem with the Sex Party being referenced in the article as it is indisputable that Fiona Patten is one of the founders of Reason Australia however the article as it now stands is grossly inaccurate. Again I refer back to the thread you began in 2017. There should be (and there is) a separate article on the Sex Party and that's where most of the information in this article belongs. Barney160 (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing with you that it was a straight rename or a formal continuation: it wasn't, and I'm quite open to language that clarifies that detail. I also specifically noted that it was a deregister-and-reregister situation rather than a rename in my post that you're responding to. But arguing that it wasn't formed out of the Sex Party is something that's just not justifiable given any reliable-source coverage of the transition. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Drover's Wife: Thanks for your prompt response. Here are the edits I suggest clarify the details. The opening paragraph: "The Reason Party is an Australian political party founded in 2017. Its leader, Fiona Patten, describes the party as a "civil libertarian alternative".[3] Patten is a veteran campaigner on issues such as censorship, equality, and discrimination.[4][5] Patten was elected to the Victorian Legislative Council at the 2014 state election in the Northern Metropolitan Region. She was re-elected for another four-year term at the 2018 state election". Under History: "In August 2017, Fiona Patten announced the launch of a new Federal party called Reason Australia that in part was borne from a merger of the Australian Sex Party and the Australian Cyclists Party.[8] In January 2018, the Victorian Electoral Commission officially changed the Victorian party's name from "Australian Sex Party – Victoria" to "Reason Victoria".[9] It was then subsequently changed to "Fiona Patten's Reason Party Victoria" In May 2018, the AEC received an application for registration of "Reason Australia",[10] which was approved on 30 August 2018.[11] In December 2019, the Voluntary Euthanasia Party (NSW) merged with the Reason Party, and has applied to the NSWEC to change its name to "Reason Party NSW .[12] Barney160 (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History section sounds good to me. The lead section needs to mention the Sex Party in some way though, especially considering it refers to Patten's service as it's MP and leader. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Drover's Wife: OK how about : "The Reason Party is an Australian political party formed in 2017. Its leader, Fiona Patten, describes the party as a "civil libertarian alternative".[3] Patten, founder of the Australian Sex Party, is a veteran campaigner on issues such as censorship, equality, and discrimination.[4][5] Patten was elected to the Victorian Legislative Council at the 2014 state election in the Northern Metropolitan Region. She was re-elected for another four-year term at the 2018 state election" Barney160 (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still that's awkwardly worded to try to get around discussing the link: it leaves the reader unclear as to why she's founded two parties in a short span of time (since it doesn't mention one ceased to exist) and doesn't mention which capacity she was a state MP at which time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Drover's Wife: Given that the History section goes into the deregistration etc....Intro: "The Reason Party is an Australian political party formed in 2017. Its leader, Fiona Patten, describes the party as a "civil libertarian alternative".[3] Patten, is a veteran campaigner on issues such as censorship, equality, and discrimination.[4][5] Patten was elected to represent the Northern Metropolitan Region in the Victorian Legislative Council at the 2014 state election as a candidate for the Australian Sex Party - Victoria. She was re-elected for another four-year term at the 2018 state election. "Barney160 (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC) @The Drover's Wife: Actually for context last sentence here should be: "She was re-elected for another four-year term at the 2018 state election as a candidate for Reason Victoria." Barney160 (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see the point of dancing around it in that section: it's taking more words to specifically dance around mentioning that Patten formed Reason out of the Sex Party. It doesn't need to be in detail, but it needs to at least mention it in a sentence. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to have been multiple aggressive posts added and removed overnight. Again, it's unhelpful to have a lead section that dances around there being any connection between the ASP and Reason even as it's mentioning Patten's parliamentary service with the ASP. I'm obviously not wedded to the current wording, but it needs to explain in at least some sense how Reason was founded and how Patten came to change from leader of the ASP to leader of Reason. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Drover's Wife: This was the post that I put up and decided to approach it in another way by asking you about the separate page for Reason. Why would you say I made aggressive posts ? Here it is: @The Drover's Wife: Your defence of the current wording in the opening paragraph indicates you want this Wikipedia article to be incorrect. To say Patten, and Patten alone you suggest, formed Reason out of the Sex Party is wrong. You were correct in 2017 as were the other contributors at that time. I have tried to be constructive and respectful. You have been neither. How about you re-word the opening and share. Barney160 (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Barney160 (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never suggested they shouldn't have separate pages and I've also never suggested I'm defending the current wording. I'll just repeat what I did say for a third time: "Again, it's unhelpful to have a lead section that dances around there being any connection between the ASP and Reason even as it's mentioning Patten's parliamentary service with the ASP. I'm obviously not wedded to the current wording, but it needs to explain in at least some sense how Reason was founded and how Patten came to change from leader of the ASP to leader of Reason." The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Alcorn, Gay (29 December 2017). "Fiona Patten: Sex party name served its purpose, now it's time for Reason". The Guardian. Retrieved 11 July 2019.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reason_Party_(Australia)&oldid=1258226874"