Talk:United Australia Party

Overused.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/national/clive-palmer-and-bob-katter-put-their-heads-together-to-plan-attack-on-this-years-federal-election/story-fndo1qgd-1226547253590 Timeshift (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Reformation

Should the 'reformation' be part of this article or a separate article? I'm not keen to see a new political party be presumed to be a continuation of the former party which successfully ran the country. That mantle needs to be earnt, and requires a consensus of historians and the Australian public. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks to me like it should be a new article, since it's a completely separate organization that simply shares a name with the old one. Horatio (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a similar situation to Pauline's United Australia Party - but without an automatically disambiguating name. Perhaps United Australia Party (2013)? Horatio (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I would support a United Australia Party (2013) page. Azirus (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe wait until the party is actually notable instead. It exists only in Clive Palmers mind at the moment. It doesn't even have a website. It should be relegated to a section in Clive Palmer's page until it actually runs a candidate, or better still wins a seat in an election somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.120.89 (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It does have a website, although it doesn't say a lot. I agree that there's no rush to create an article, since the damage to the United Australia Party article is limited so far. Horatio (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth. All reliable media reports use words to the effect it is the same party "re-formed", "revived" or "reborn". 60.242.1.97 (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That's what Clive Palmer said. But where is the actual connection between the old party and the new? It's also said that he's registering a new party, so it's a separate organisation. Horatio (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Palmer is reviving the name UAP not the party. There is absolutely no connection between the original UAP (dissolved in 1945) and the new party. Just because Palmer wants to put himself among "former leaders" such as Menzies, Hughes and Lyon does not mean it is true. Let's see how QEC or the Australian Electoral Commission treats any application before we go along with the propaganda. It's inclusion in the current UAP article should be qualified. FlatOut 06:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think verifiability will be an issue. Media reports do say it's a new party. Not every reliable media report says it's (also) a reformed party, here's one from The New York Times that describes it only as a new party. Horatio (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. In the end the AEC will determine whether its a new party or a reformation FlatOut 01:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, the party name has been charged to avoid being knocked back by the AEC.

I've read that the AEC only checks for naming conflicts with currently registered parties, but there's another party trying to register with a similar name. In the meantime, somebody has created United Australia Party (current), which seems like a decent disambiguation for now. Horatio (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

There have been many parties over the years with the names similar to "Australia Party" or "Australian Party", though none have overlapped in time periods. If Clive Palmer's party achieves all other requirements, they will be a registered party. Azirus (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Now that Palmer's party has a new name, is the disambiguation needed at all? FlatOut 03:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

United Australia Party

This appears to be the new name for Clive Palmer's new party. Timeoin (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Clive Palmer's United Australia Party?

Agree with posters above. Should we have a disambiguation page on this page to cover the new United Australia Party recently launched by Clive Palmer? Is this a relaunch of the old Palmer Unity Party or a whole new party? ie what is the Electoral Office's stance on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce bubbles (talk • contribs) 09:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Protest in the lead

CED (Concise Oxford Dictionary defines protest when used intransitively as make a protest against an action, proposal etc usually followed by “against” “at” “about” etc. It can also be used transitively sometimes followed by “that” and means “affirm” Thus to “protest the faith of Jesus Christ” means to affirm the truth of that faith. “To protest that Darwin’s theory of Evolution is true,” means exactly that the speaker or writer believes the theory to be valid and accurate. Protest can therefore be positive rather than negative and it seems to me to be dangerous to use a phrase like 

“to protest ......financial policies” without adding the words “against or “in favour of” after the word protest. Spinney Hill (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)