Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia / Politics (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon WikiProject Australian politics is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
 

Should we have election links in leader infoboxes?[edit]

Per here. I think we should have links to leaders' elections in infoboxes to give readers an area to quickly navigate to their respective election articles and don't need to read through the article in the chance they may come across the election link. Elections are central to the outcomes of leaders. Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree there should be a navigation list of election campaigns led. What we don't need is a strange separation like this where campaigns led as PM and opposition leader are listed separately. WWGB (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Many articles include the election links in the infobox, however it would be good if we had consistency amongst the articles as to whether or not we include them. Do we include links to elections where they lost office as well as those they won? Do we also include the elections where they were Opposition Leader? And do we divide those elections between the box for Prime Minister and Opposition leader? A consistent approach should be agreed upon.
They used to be a permanent fixture of the infobox, then some began to vanish while others remained. I don't see the issue people have with them, they are rather helpful and highly relevant. The Tepes (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
IMHO if they were a leader at an election then there should be a link to the election in the infobox. Timeshift (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
If we are to go ahead with including the election links shall we agree on a format? I propose that in cases of Prime Ministers all elections they led the party in are to be included within the Prime Ministers box, even those they lost. As for Opposition leaders who have never been Prime Minister, they should have the links in the Opposition leaders box. This should address what WWGB was getting at I think.
If anyone has any other ideas I'm all ears. The Tepes (talk) 05:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree. Timeshift (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, that kind of separation is exactly what I DON'T want! For example (e.g.) Whitlam led five election campaigns 69/72/74/75/77 and they should all be listed in the one list. The average reader won't know to go looking elsewhere for campaigns led from opposition. WWGB (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah that's what I meant. Sorry poor phrasing on my part. I meant we include all election links in the Prime Ministers box, I meant in cases such as Bill Hayden who never made it to Prime Minister we place it in the Opposition Leaders box. Only in cases like that.The Tepes (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
That's how I read it. Timeshift (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually inclined to disagree here. This seems exactly the kind of thing that is better in the text than in the infoboxes (most of which are already monstrous and could use pruning). Open to being convinced, though. Frickeg (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Monstrous infoboxes are a seperate issue, election links are just a half-size line of space. I mean, adding Bob Hawke's 3-day stint as Treasurer of Australia to his infobox? Really? Timeshift (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Links to elections take up very little space in the infobox, however when they are only available in the text, they are frequently separated. The Tepes (talk) 06:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. And they're not always obvious. For example in the Bob Hawke article lead, the link to the 1983 election is "landslide election victory". Not exactly clear. Timeshift (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

And he's back, reverting, and not discussing. Why must we deal with such a recalcitrant and intransigent editor? Timeshift (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Frickeg. There is no point adding this in the infobox as it can be found in the text. It also looks untidy and is distracting. Also, if it is so important to add something as irrelevant as this in the infobox, then why would you not add truly important pieces of information in infoboxes on other pages, such as the political position and ideology of the Liberal Party. That is something that is actually important and should be included. Seems you are doing one thing one one page, but doing the complete opposite on another. Incompetence from Timeshift once again. Andreas11213 (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Stop being WP:POINTy please. And make a valid comparison while you're at it. Why must we deal with such a recalcitrant and intransigent editor? Timeshift (talk) 07:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not "disrupting wikipedia to prove a point". In fact I am not disrupting wikipedia at all. You have support from three users, and opposition from two users. You have not reached consensus to add this. Also you are just proving my point in regards to what I said on the Talk Page of the Liberal party, which was that Wikipedia has been held ransom by a totalitarian regime run by a small group of arrogant, smart-ass users like yourself, who whinge hysterically when they do not get their way. I don't have to be dictated by what you do or say and excuse me but I do not need to change my views for you, or for anyone. Andreas11213 (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Mate you need to settle down a bit, I'm happy to take differing input into account, but you need to town down the hyperbole and drama. It would be best not to make rather personal attacks against other users. The Tepes (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see how the elections a Prime Minister or Opposition leader has led a party into is irrelevant to that section of the info box.
Also the inclusion of ideology for Political Parties infoboxes is a discussion for another thread and has no bearing in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SultanNicole (talkcontribs) 08:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I hate Infoboxes at the best of times. They are repositories of dumbed down information. Simple "factoids" to appeal to simpletons. The less they contain, the better. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I disagree entirely, I think they provide a necessary condensed summary of the individual and what offices they held/hold that deem them relevant. I also think they provide the collection of links all in one place that are most relevant to the subject of the article. IMO The Tepes (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Elections they contested/won are unnecessary and irrelevant in condensing the information of an article into the infobox of a politician. The infobox of a politician must include important things, such as the offices they held and their personal information, not the elections they won/contested. This information can be found in the text. It looks untidy and distracting in the infobox. Also, if you think that infoboxes are used to condense information to provide a summary of an article, then would you support adding the most important piece of information in the infobox of the Liberal Party, which is the party position and ideology? Andreas11213 (talk) 08:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, as I previously stated, links to the elections are spread out and hard to find within the body of text. It's hardly distracting, it's one line of small text.
As for adding ideology to the infobox,that is a completely separate matter to this. It also is the source of much debate in academic fields, often seeing conclusions that their is either no ideology, or that their is no specific ideology. It also is an area that never gains consensus.
As for the whole Left-Right position, that is an entirely outdated formula. It's also so subjective, what is Right to someone may be Left or Centre to someone else. It adds nothing to an article.
However I this is an entirely discussion and we should stay on topic. The Tepes (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Please let's stay on the topic at hand. Editing the page for the Liberal Party has absolutely no relevance to this matter. If Andreas11213 wishes to discuss the matter, he should begin a thread on his talk page.SultanNicole (talk)

So SultanNicole, Frickeg and myself oppose the inclusions, where as The Tepes, Timeshift and WWGB support the inclusion. There is an equal amount of users opposing and supporting, so consensus to include it has not been reached. Therefore, I am reverting it and restoring the original infobox, without the elections included. Andreas11213 (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Consensus to remove them has not been reached either. I support their inclusion, which would tip the balance to retaining them. I think before further action is taken we wait about a week before their removal. I noticed your reverts have themselves been reverted by users not included in this discussion.
Considering that they are often included in State Premiers infobox's, as well as having been included in many Opposition leaders box's for quite some time, I think they should remain included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SultanNicole (talkcontribs) 08:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Even though they actually look quite neat, don't take up a lot of info box space and serve some purpose, I'd be inclined to remove them on a technicality - Australian prime ministers are not elected to office in a general election. They are elected as members of parliament and selected by their respective parties as prime minister. They may have contested many elections, but not all as prime minister, or to become prime minister. What do you do with Gillard, for example - she became prime minister, but did not contest the previous election as a pending PM? Unless the elections relate to all elections contested as a candidate (and by extension, this is included in the info box of all election candidates, then I think it's actually not correct to have the list. It would be very different with an American president, for example, where the office is won by winning the election. This is not the case with the Australian parliamentary system. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Technically correct, but Australian federal elections have been increasingly presidential in style, with the focus on the Labor and Liberal leaders. We have the same presidential-type debates. We see limited coverage given to other candidates. Even ministers are given limited exposure. The Health Minister (and Opposition spokesman) will present the party health policy for example, and then they are quietly wheeled back into their electorates, referring everything back to the party leader. The leader and the election results are now all but inseparable. --Pete (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what that's got to do with a link to the election in their infobox. Having the link there doesn't say voters voted for them as PM, does it? By that logic we shouldn't have infoboxes on election pages with the PMs and their images, hey? :) Sorry but it's an invalid point. Timeshift (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
No, I think it is a valid point, actually. We don't want to be reinforcing the misconception that Prime Ministers are elected by the people, when they aren't. Having said that, wow, this wall of text all about something like this? It's not that important. Frickeg (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Election links in PM infoboxes is no different to PM image/link in election infoboxes when it comes to whether the people elect their MP or the PM, does it? If so, how? "Re-inforcing the misconception", if true, would be the same with PM infoboxes as election infoboxes. Timeshift (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, up to a point. I think there's a big difference between including the party leaders on the page about the election campaign, and doing so in the infobox for Prime Ministers. In relation to the election it's highly relevant, but in relation to prime ministership I'm not sure it's enough of a huge thing to be including it in the infobox - and it is, of course, unofficial. Frickeg (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
As far as "Australian prime ministers are not elected to office in a general election" is concerned, there is no difference. Timeshift (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Skyring/Pete supports including election links in leader infoboxes, but his support was removed due to an "interaction ban"? Timeshift (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I support it to a point but how on earth would it work for Menzies? Orderinchaos 04:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The way it currently works at Robert Menzies.. Timeshift (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

A quick look around Wikipedia at David Cameron, John Key, Manuel Valls, Narendra Modi, Shinzō Abe and Stephen Harper shows remarkable consistency - no links to elections in infoboxes about politicians who are Prime Ministers. NebY (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Correction - David Cameron has one such link in the caption of his picture. His immediate three predecessors - at least, I haven't further back - do not. NebY (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Other country leaders are irrelevant. We are referring to Australian leaders. There is no blanket requirement for a change to affect every such similar world-wide. Timeshift (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think a big issue is the fact they keep disappearing then reappearing, the lesser visited pages of former State Premiers, and Federal Opposition leaders tend to maintain their inclusion. Not just within Australian pages, but other nations political leaders too (on the pages they have been included at least). It appears to be the more popular pages where there is this constant conflict as to whether or not too include them. In my opinion the best way to resolve this issue is if they were included on all the pages in a broad effort, rather then the current arrangement where some always have them, some never have them, and others have them depending on the month. SultanNicole (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

So we're back here again... Timeshift (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Evidently. Given that they have been in all articles for over a month, without any removal since Andreas11213 was banned, I'm surprised to see this return as an issue. The Tepes (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see what the issue with them is. They are not at all messy as claimed and provided a quick way to navigate to particular election campaigns that previous and current PM's have stood in. AlanS (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't exactly contributed to prior discussion on the topic but my opinion is that elections listed under Prime Minister assume that he was Prime Minister at the time of that election. Elections listed under Leader of the Liberal party would make far more sense given that he was not Prime Minister at or before the 2010 election. While the links to the elections - I can concede - would be beneficial for some users - they should not be confusing. Which they are. Simply, list the elections under the 'Leader of the Liberal party', since his position as leader is more relevant than the executive position of PM. Communistgoat (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as "SultanNicole" was a sock puppet of The Tepes, could all users who support retaining the links of elections in the infoboxes please make themselves known. If not, I will revert, seeing as the only reason consensus was gained in the first place was because one extra user, SultanNicole, agreed on adding them in, and seeing as that user does not exist, I think it should be reverted. Andreas11213 (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Here we go. Like a dog with a bone. On the point of SultanNicole, had any effort been put in the investigation it would have shown SultanNicole was not a sock puppet.
Timeshift,AlanS, Pete, others and myself have all put forward our arguments. While you're at it whant to bring up adding ideology in the infobox again? The Tepes (talk) 09:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Political parties in Australia[edit]

This category seems like a bit of a mess. There's a bunch of random party-by-ideology categories, some categorisations of which are a bit questionable, a bunch of party-by-state categories, and various people running bots have ripped various parties out of the main category and stuck them in random subcategories. More helpfully, someone is running around putting the defunct parties in a defunct party category, which is past time. I feel like a way of sorting this out would be a) to put all current parties in Category:Political parties in Australia, b) creating a holding category for the party-by-ideology categories if people feel strongly that they should exist, and c) find and add that category tag that stops silly people with bots messing up the place by deleting stuff from the main category. Thoughts? -- The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Adam Marshall[edit]

This article could do with some eyes. There's an editor trying to include some serious negative claims in a BLP article without any citation at all and I'm getting fed up with reiterating the same ground. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Kathy Jackson[edit]

There has recently been coverage by The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/how-the-friend-kathy-jackson-never-knew-revealed-creditcard-abuse-12-years-earlier/story-fn59noo3-1227006472214#) about Kathy Jackson's knowledge of Craig Thompsons activities for a long period of time before she choose to come forward. There are some who are currently attempting to sensor the addition of that coverage in her page for anyone who is interested. AlanS (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you might want to talk this one out before throwing around suggestions of censorship. I largely agree with you on the factual issue but what you wrote is not what the source said. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I think you can safely infer being supplied with secret credit cards coerced out of a business as misuse of position. AlanS (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The source is very carefully worded. The article text repeatedly removed is less cautious and is a BLP vio for reasons noted on the article talk page. Please refrain from reinserting it unless there is consensus to do so. --Pete (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there any reason in particular that material on Jackson being sued by her own union is not included anywhere on her page or for that mater any of the revelations coming out from the ongoing royal commission? AlanS (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME applies here, and we need to be careful that allegations aren't given undue weight or presented as fact. Given the number of allegations which have been made against Jackson, and articles such as this which state that at least some of them are considered credible, they should be noted in the article. But so should her responses to them. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The article badly needs to be updated regarding the Royal Commission and the litigation between Jackson and the HSU. There are tons of references for both things, and both should be very easily able to be summarised. The story you're attempting to add, however, is one very carefully worded story which you're very not-carefully and quite inaccurately summarising in the article, hence the controversy here. I keep having to rein lefties in on the articles of people I thoroughly dislike and it's annoying. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
My opinion of her (which has nothing to do with the material I've added) would be much the same if I leaned the left or right of the political spectrum. In any case I've started a section on the royal commission. It's nothing fantastic and rather short at this stage. I hope its inclusion is far less controversial. AlanS (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

State MP numbers in lead infobox of political parties[edit]

Why are we starting to do this? Eg Australian Greens and Australian Labor Party. For starters, there's not even a consistency in layout. Timeshift (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I have generally thought that this has worked where I've seen it done elsewhere: Palmer United Party and Shooters and Fishers Party being two good examples. I think especially for these smaller parties, it maps out their current electoral standing nicely, and is in my book a helpful addition. HOWEVER, the adaptation for the two articles you cited is a mess. In the Labor article, "state and territory parliaments" is too big a conglomeration to be useful, and I'm guessing is probably a maths job a Wikipedian did and thus OR. In the Greens case, it's too sprawling - for one, the NT and Queensland shouldn't be mentioned since there are no MPs there, and I'm not thrilled with adding the two houses together as I think it would be confusing to non-hacks. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I essentially agree with all you've said. Additionally, with the Greens, it's a duplicate of the boxes further down the article which I think worked nicely as was. Timeshift (talk) 08:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the boxes further down the Greens article are a much better way of doing it in their case, but ugh that whole article is such a sprawling mess that I had trouble finding them. Can I suggest as one alternative that we draw an arbitrary line and use these state infobox fields where it's simple and helpful, and just don't use them for Labor, Liberal and Greens? The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree completely with that suggestion. Smaller parties yes, major parties + Greens no. Frickeg (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Should we keep the Greens HoR table? This one. Seems pretty pointless to have one for a party that's only got one HoR seat. We don't and shouldn't have it for Palmer or Katter. Timeshift (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with keeping it, since it also includes useful information like the primary vote. Not too fussed, though. Frickeg (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Electoral funding for a 4%+ primary vote in a lower house seat[edit]

In the SA Electoral district of Fisher, Family First got 4%, or 3.982%, of the primary vote. But the candidate here claims "We got 4% of the vote in Fisher, just enough to get the $3000 nomination fee back from the Electoral Commission". How is 4% calculated? I would have thought 3.9999% is not enough but 4.0000% is? Timeshift (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

As a question, do independent sources confirm that they received the fee reimbursement? Nick-D (talk) 05:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I did use the word 'claim' :) Timeshift (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
He's just talking about the return of the deposit, though, not electoral funding. (I couldn't find any evidence of there even being public funding of elections in SA on the ECSA website, but I may have missed it.) The HA candidate handbook says that you need "more than 4%" to get your deposit back, so I think the candidate is probably mistaken. I couldn't for the life of me find an official list of returned deposits, and it might not exist. The AEC always publishes a list detailing the amount of public funding given out, but if SA doesn't do public funding it probably doesn't need to disclose much. Frickeg (talk) 06:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
This might be a question worth asking the Electoral Commission directly, since it's not something that needs to be directly cited in any article but would be useful to know. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Mike Baird (politician) as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - your opinion/vote required[edit]

See Talk:Mike Baird (politician)#Requested move and add your opinion/vote please! Timeshift (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Article link change from a bot required please[edit]

Can someone get a bot to go through Mike Baird (politician) links and change them to Mike Baird as he is now WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Is this necessary? They'll all redirect anyway. The only ones that really matter are the navboxes, which I've just done. Frickeg (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Redirects aren't ideal though. Certainly it's not necessary enough for someone to put the time in to it, which is why i've asked if someone can get a bot to do it. Timeshift (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Political Party "Full Names"[edit]

It is unnecessary to include the full name of the political parties of Australian politicians on both the full page and the infobox. If they are an Australian politician, it is fairly obvious they belong to the Liberal Party of Australia, not the Liberal Party of Canada. It looks silly having the full name and can sometimes cause the infobox to appear wider because the name of the party is so long. This is the case for some politicians belonging to the Australian Labor Party. The full name of the party does not necessarily have to include the country in which it belongs to; the Liberal Party is still the full name. If Liberal or Labor was simply wriitten, like on the pages of British politicians where Conservative or Labour is simply written, then there would be an issue. All other pages of politicians have the party, but not the country. The Republican Party, The Christian Democratic Union, The Communist Party, The Justice and Development Party. And honestly, don't give me the "Other Stuff Exists Excuse", because that is really lame. Making Australian pages completely different to other wikipedia pages is not necessarily a good thing, maybe its time we start putting in line our pages with other pages. Finally, consensus was never actually reached to add "the full name of the party", so maybe you might want to either agree with me or put your case forward before actually reverting every edit I make. Andreas11213 (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Full party names. Timeshift (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
That is actually the most pathetic thing I have ever seen, but I'm not surprised. You never come up with any valid counter arguments or arguments of your own. As I said, consensus has not been reached to ADD "full party names" so I will start reverting unless you or someone else comes up with real, valid points. Andreas11213 (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any point changing it from full party names, I would vote to maintain the pages as they are.The Tepes (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I prefer the full names, I certainly don't think it looks silly. Do you have an example of where the full party name has pushed out the width of the infobox? Because I thought they wrapped like any other text... --Canley (talk) 07:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
They do wrap around. The Tepes (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I cannot see that this matters either way. Andreas is right to say that the possibilities for confusion are slight (although not altogether non-existent, since there are politicians who have served in multiple countries - George Reid, for example), but I see nothing particularly wrong with having them at the full names either. To be quite honest I've been doing them interchangeably for years, and I'm not the only one. I usually shorten them when more than one party is involved, because it does start to get a little hard to follow when you've got years and party names going down on separate lines, etc. But I don't know that this is really a case where consistency matters that much, and we certainly don't have consistency now. (I would avoid going halfway, though - i.e. "Liberal Party", rather than "Liberal Party of Australia" or "Liberal".) Frickeg (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Edit: actually, I do think Andreas is operating under a bit of a misconception here when he says "The full name of the party does not necessarily have to include the country in which it belongs to; the Liberal Party is still the full name." This is not true. The Liberals' full name is "Liberal Party of Australia", nothing else. Frickeg (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
It also gets historically confusing as we've had multiple "Liberal" parties. I also have basically done the two interchangeably. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

First, Andreas doesn't point out who they were addressing their initial post to but it wasn't me. Second, Andreas, you don't ever learn from experience, your continued recalcitrance has become intolerable, so basically i'm done with you. From now on i'll just state what I support and ignore time-consuming but fruitless engagement with you, and let consensus from the masses take its course knowing my belief has been lodged. Timeshift (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)