Talk:Australian Democrats

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics / Political parties (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Political parties task force (marked as Mid-importance).


Previous discussions: Archive 1 Archive 2

WikiProject Australia / Politics (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Australian Democrats 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (marked as Mid-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance.

Suggest merger of electoral fortunes and history and rewrite[edit]

Hello, I'm going to suggest an edit to merge the history and electoral fortunes sections because they're a bit all over the place and there's a bit of both in each, and there's a whopping great big hole of the late 90s in the middle. I've been reading a lot of academic articles on the dems lately thus have the refs at hand and have some time in the first two weeks of July to do this if there is no objections by then. I've previously declared my work with the party, but haven't been a member since 2010, and everything will be referenced - removing a great deal of the unnecessary commentary that is in the current content. I also take no sides with either of the two versions of the current party.

Also going to suggest removal of years and framing of categories more thematically: - Foundation - Early years - Balance of Power - GST deal - Leadership issues - Decline - Party Split

ok? Kathoc (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Time to end use of WP as dispute battleground?[edit]

The shilly-shallying of two purported AD parties to establish their respective websites and officebearers under WP endorsement has tested our patience for over two years since Brian Greig walked out, and the latest competing edits can be seen here and here. It is not our business to go on hosting such a dispute when we can simply decide which of these two is the real party--and dispense with the bogus one. According to the official AEC registrar, the real party's correspondence address is in South Australia, and that is the only party that should be recognised in WP until such time as there is a change in the official public record. Therefore, take notice that I intend to delete links to the website of the unrecognised group in seven days' time unless valid reasons are presented to the contrary. I have no personal POV in this matter, having resigned from the party in 1993 when it was a completely different organisation. Bjenks (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It might be good to add material to the article about the internal (and obviously now external) manoeuvring that has led to the present divided situation. Recent history about the party is very thin in the article. Anything we add would, of course, require excellent sourcing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Encyclopedically, the infighting should be ignored as trivia. The recent history is naturally "thin" because there has been little or no public presence. Imho, a great deal of the "Electoral fortunes" content should now be pruned and replaced by one or two paragraphs covering the Kernot-Lees period and the GST hubris, followed by a short exposition of the subsequent electoral rejection and demise. To date, I've disqualified myself from this because of my past POV issues. If no other editor is interested in taking it on, I would see that as another reasonable signal to prune the whole content into a more digestible article. Bjenks (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Australian Democrats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)



The Wikipedia article is about the Australian Democrats, that is, the political party of that name. The opening paragraph alleges that the Democrats are "extinct". Not sure about that exact word - but let's put that to one side for the moment. If the Democrats are extinct, why is there a side box with the name of a President and Secretary? And indeed with a link to a current website?

AustralianEditor83 (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

: <Comment : I have been a member since last century and can say that the organisation has changed over the years but it is the same organisation and this is its history. Why would you delete current references that are part of the organisation ? Registration of political parties is to do with government registers not Wikipedia, so if its registered or not does not make it extinct or another organisation>

Further to above comment, my suggestion is to remove the side box. Please comment here if you think this this is problematic. AustralianEditor83 (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC) <Comment

The only point of that action would be to mask the problem by blanking info about the deregistered party's current nature. The term 'extinct' cannot apply until all life has ceased. Even then, as in the case of the DLP, a party can be brought back to life. To my mind, as per the Democratic Labor Party (historical), we must now have separate articles for the defunct Australian Democrats (historical) and the present impotent yet active organisation. The two deserve to be wikilinked because of the apparent partial continuity of membership and policy ideals.Bjenks (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The current AD is non-notable though. No sources, no registration - it may as well be five dudes in a shed. Should they become notable, as in the case of the revived DLP, then that is a possibility. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, notability is a problem for the non-parliamentary new brigade. However, a reading of their most recent journal shows there is still a thread of continuity, provided mainly by the support of 12-year Senate leader Lyn Allison (Vic) on p. 7. However, as they say, yesterday's rooster is today's feather duster. I note, too, that most energy is coming from SA and Victoria, the two state divisions which pushed for expulsions and suspensions of members they disagreed with--stamping out the foundation principles of democratic membership as extolled by Sir Mark Oliphant. (I found it ironic to see Sir Mark's words quoted in the journal.) I suggest, however, that continuity alone is a slender ground for notability. I'm for applying a cut-off (at 2008) of the historical Australian Democrats. The current organisation (which is NOT yet dead) could be mentioned either in a final section/paragraph or given a brief separate article with strict limitations according to notability and verifiability. Again I (alone in this forum) declare a potential conflict of interest as a former AD member. Bjenks (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with much of what BJenks has to say. However a question: does anyone have a reliable and independent source to support the assertion that D.Churchill and R.Howe are currently president and secretary, as is asserted by this Wikipedia article? I know there are Australian Electoral Commission documents. I don't think these don't actually assert that the above persons previously held these offices, but it can be inferred from the documents. However these AEC documents are now dated, and in any case these documents refer to the former registered political party entity, which no longer exists. There is also the Australian-hyphenated-Democrats website, but Wikipedia (see W:RS) cautions against relying on self-published sources, especially those of a self-serving nature. Thus my question. AustralianEditor83 (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
In the absence for any reliable source indicating that D.Churchill and R.Howe are indeed currently president and secretary, I propose to delete this in another 48 hours, in accordance with WP:RS. In the meantime, if anyone does become aware of any reliable source, please indicate here on this talk page. AustralianEditor83 (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Australian Democrats. 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}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)