Talk:Australian Labor Party

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Australian Labor Party article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 3 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to discussions about infoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a contentious topic.

Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

Organized Labour Top‑importance

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour 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.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been selected for the Organized Labour Portal Article Of The Day for 10th of each month.

Australia: Politics Top‑importance

	Australia portal Australian Labor Party 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Top-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Politics: Political parties Mid‑importance

	Politics portal 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance).

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Results table

Why are they listed as placing 1st in 2016 and 2019?? Are you counting The Coalition as separate parties? Or is this an error? SecretName101 (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix the picture of Labor party factions

In all the other places, the Labor left is represented by dark red while the Labor right is represented by light red, but the picture in the "Labor party factions" got them reversed, please fix it. 47.218.111.38 (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Put it back.

Trying to find sources on the colours as from a quick search every left faction seems to use scarlet red. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 08:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding both democratic socialism & Third Way to the infobox

My understanding of the party is that it's divided into two factions:

1) a leftist faction that advocates for democratic socialism known as the Labor Left, which currently has 49 MPs & 15 senators

2) a more moderate faction known as the Labor Right, itself divided between centre-left members that advocate for social democracy & centrist members that advocate for Third Way politics, which currently has 42 MPs & 11 senators

So social democracy by itself is very, very far from being representative of the ideology of the party as a whole, it's just the ideology of, not even the entirety of the smaller one of the two factions of the party, but of part of the smaller one of the two factions of the party.

Therefore I think that both democratic socialism & Third Way should be added to the infobox. Lekim9 (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed at length and no consensus has developed previously for the proposal. TarnishedPath^talk 13:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It just doesn't make any sense to me to have social democracy as the only ideology listed on the infobox.

If one where to "calculate" the "ideological average" within the party considering how its caucus ranges from leftists who ideologically advocate for democratic socialism to centrists who ideologically advocate for Third Way politics it would be more than fair to characterize that "ideological average" as "social democratic", but those who aren't neither leftists who ideologically advocate for democratic socialism nor centrists who ideologically advocate for Third Way politics but actual centre-left social democrats don't constitute even a mere plurality but an outright minority within the caucus, how small of one I'm not entirely sure since it isn't entirely clear what portion of the Labor Right's 42 MPs & 11 senators leans more towards Third Way centrism & what portion does so towards actual centre-left social democracy, whereas leftists who ideologically advocate for democratic socialism do in fact constitute not just a plurality but an absolute majority within the caucus, with the Labor Left having 49 MPs & 15 senators. Lekim9 (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't edit material into articles based on our own ideas about what data says. We utilse what reliable secondary sources say. TarnishedPath^talk 01:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could do something like the Canadian NDP and list factions ideology? I'm still kinda open to it if it has sources. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think if people wanted to expand the factions section, where more background could be provided, I wouldn't be against that. That's provided of course that there was sufficient sourcing. Not everything, including the kitchen sink, needs to be jammed into the infobox. TarnishedPath^talk 10:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation has extensively been talked about. I used to be very pro adding "Democratic Socialism" because the major left faction believes in that (And also has a majority now).

But based on current consensus and literature the party sits in the social democracy kinda area and is described as such.

Not to do Self-Research on wiki. But Third way is dead, Labor Right overwhelmingly advocates for "Social Democracy" and "Labourism" now days. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The left has a majority? I missed that bit. TarnishedPath^talk 10:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Third Way isn't a contemporary designation, when people say Third Way you think 1990s. Don't support using it in the infobox and think ideological is better in prose rather than trying to boil down complexities into a single catchphrase in the infobox. I T B F 📢 10:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

when people say Third Way you think 1990s

That was the crux of quite a bit of the conversation last time this was discussed. TarnishedPath^talk 11:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]