Talk:Labor Left

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Labor Left 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: 1: 30 days

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Australia: Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal Labor Left 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Mid-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 Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Moving membership list to Category:Labor Left politicians

This page currently contains long table entitled 'Federal Members of the Left'. This seems out of place; both because it's the sort of information which can easily be consolidated into a category page, and because this page is about the Labor Left on a State and Territory level, not just a National.

I'm proposing that this table be removed and the information instead be consolidated into Category:Labor Left politicians. That category is currently a catch-all, but can be expanded to include sub-categories for each jurisdiction across the country. Paperclip Maximiser (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done - have removed list and placed a category link at the top of the page after nobody raised dissent here. Paperclip Maximiser (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is describing Labor Left as centre-left to left erroneous?

I made an edit describing this "Left" faction of a centre-left party as centre-left to left and it was reverted I'd to know why. After all, one ideology of this faction that is listed in the infobox is democratic socialism, which is a left to far-left ideology, so what is the problem. Before editing, I checked this talk page for consensus against such a change and found none, so I saw no reason not to make this change. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 10:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They're not that left, and making it on the basis of a philosophical statement in the infobox without any actual knowledge of the subject is unhelpful. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how did you judge it as centre-left and not more left? What objective evidence do you have to say it is centre-left? Because, I'm quite sure what it comes down to is what you think it is, not something you have a heap of political scientists to say is the case. I can't find a clear list of their policies, via Google searching (as they do not seem to have a separate website, unless you count nswleft.com, which is only their NSW Faction), nor by looking at this Wiki article. But, based on their ideologies, which was most of what I had to go by, I thought, it must be centre-left to left-wing. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 10:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a silly thing to say when you've not only got no objective evidence for the changes you're trying to make to the long-established text, but you don't know anything about the subject at all. It would be better to remove the "democratic socialism" because although there's a historical argument for its presence it can't really be applied to the present-day faction (most members would not remotely identify their politics as "socialist", and their current candidate for Labor leader is one of the most anti-socialist people in the party) and, as this conversation demonstrates, this can be very confusing to randos stumbling upon the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking for their policies or other pieces of evidence to back up your belief they're just centre-left, preferably in an official list (as opposed to what you just say here, because I would like something more concrete than just someone's say so on this talk page) of sorts, and instead of showing me evidence of this you're just acting snobby. Please, I'm trying to learn here, because you're telling me I'm ignorant, and instead you're focusing on just putting me down. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 13:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this thread is so ages ago now and editors are still going back and forwards on this. Personally I think if there's going to be any change from the WP:QUO we need academic sources from subject matter expects.

Pinging @Strong1891, @Vif12vf, @Helper201, @ZlatanSweden10, @MrFluffster and @Loytra who have edited over this since April 2023. Sorry if I've missed anyone. Pinging @Fuse809 and @The Drover's Wife as participants in this existing thread.

Can we please have some discussion going so that there isn't needless editing going backwards and forwards please. TarnishedPath^talk 12:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]