This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Organized Labour Top‑importance 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 articles 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 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 articles 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 LibrarianWhat'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 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 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.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

The faction section contains a number of unsourced statements which are highly contentious. I suggest if anyone wants any of those statements to remain that they find WP:RS within a reasonable period of time. In the meantime I've added citations needed tags. TarnishedPath^talk 11:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good move. HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The section specifying Bill Shorten as leader of Labor Right and Anthony Albanese as leader of Labor Left is just untrue. There is no singular "leader" of either faction, which makes providing a contradicting source to this difficult.

The article here provides some more detail on the convenors of the factions.

I'd suggest deleting the following:

Preselections are usually conducted along factional lines, although sometimes a non-factional candidate will be given preferential treatment (this happened with Cheryl Kernot in 1998 and again with Peter Garrett in 2004).[citation needed] Deals between the factions to divide up the safe seats between them often take place.[citation needed] Preselections, particularly for safe Labor seats, can sometimes be strongly contested.[citation needed] A particularly fierce preselection sometimes gives rise to accusations of branch stacking (signing up large numbers of nominal party members to vote in preselection ballots), personation, multiple voting and, on occasions, fraudulent electoral enrolment.[citation needed] Trade unions were in the past accused of giving inflated membership figures to increase their influence over preselections, but party rules changes have stamped out this practice.[citation needed] Preselection results are sometimes challenged, and the National Executive is sometimes called on to arbitrate these disputes.[citation needed]

and the specification that Anthony Albanese and Bill Shorten are factional leaders. Proscrabblemaster (talk) 04:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've also removed the mention that Labor members may align themselves with particular factions and pay an additional fee - This is, from my research, completely false. It appears the ALP has sub-groups you can choose to pay extra for, but these are for particular interest groups (First Nations, Republican, LGBT) not for factional alignments. Proscrabblemaster (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Proscrabblemaster, I tagged those areas quite some time ago and I was meaning to come back to it after a month, but it slipped my mind. Thankyou. Contentious claims like those really do need to be appropriate sourced. TarnishedPath^talk 05:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't believe the extra fee is required for specific groups either when in some states. For example LGBT and First nations you don't have to pay. The whole section needs drastic overhaul in my view. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've just removed a section of text which was supported by Jacobin. The specific Jacobin source was an opinion piece, which Jacobin articles often are so it had to go. If anyone wants to restore that section of text I suggest they'll need to find references which aren't opinion pieces, academic sources would be fantastic. TarnishedPath^talk 16:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey so the source I added for the section previous to that is an academic source that backs up most of the information. The section might still need edits if you look over it. Thought it'd be best to undo your edit and then edit it so that line has a connection to who wrote it etc. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually after re reading the source I'll just write something new. The framing in that para is all over the place. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thought I'd open up a broad discussion about these sections.

First to begin with I'm wondering if anyone would be against bringing in the date conventions that you see on pages such as MPLA and Labor Party (South Korea). Being that if the party has existed for an extended period of time and the position has changed that this can be shown in this section. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DirectorDirectorDirector, I'm not against such a change per se but I'd be against it if it was based on an individual editors ideas, i.e. original research. If such a change does happen it should be properly cited, preferably from academic sources where the authors are subject matter experts. TarnishedPath^talk 23:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey yall it seems like most are okay with the general idea of adding in the dating convention so I'll add it soon (By most of yall I mean the watchers that didn't comment too).

On another note It would appear some are trying to move to have "Labourism" added to the ideology. There are sources used in the Wikipedia which would back this up. Is anyone against adding this change? TheGhostGum (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I strongly oppose that change – “labourism” isn’t technically a political ideology in itself, at best it is a typical component of social democracy. Therefore listing it is misleading and tautological.— Autospark (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll look into it more, but I'm finding a lot of papers that explicitly separate Social Democracy and Labourism. Some New Left Scholars do state Labourism is a form of Social Democracy however it wouldn't make it's listing tautological per say at worst if we take only the New Left Literature it would be similar to other pages that list Democratic Socialism and Socialism, at best if we only take the non-New Left Scholars we would be highlighting a very key diversity in the Labour movement compared to Social democracy movements. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I wrote before I'm not against dating as long as there is appropriate citation, preferably from academic sources where the authors are subject matter experts. If we're going to have any change from the WP:QUO it has to be in a positive direction, otherwise it should remain as is. I agree with Autospark about the Labourism bit. TarnishedPath^talk 00:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with the appropriate citation piece, I'm currently find some sources that are more contemporary. Compared to using the same old few things published in the 80s about Labor in the 40s. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With User:Autospark, I also strongly oppose "labourism", a mere synonym of "social democracy". This party is a broad centre-left one, but it is correctly described with "social democracy" and "centre-left" in the infobox. I would not add anything else there. --Checco (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Checco if its a synonym why does the literature explicitly separate them and say they are distinct? TheGhostGum (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you are talking about the labour movement, that is not a political ideology... --Checco (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Checco no I directly mean the term "Labourism" as used across the literature on the topic as an independent term from social democracy. TheGhostGum (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look, I don't think we need to argue over this. I think we've already established there is not consensuses to use the term in the infbox? Do people agree? TarnishedPath^talk 14:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, there is no consensus on adding "labourism", which, btw, redirects to Labour movement in Wikipedia. --Checco (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A redirection to another Wikipedia page wouldn't constitute evidence of a term not being popularly used. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed, there is no consensus for adding it to the infobox. But it does seem like it should be listed somewhere in the existing article for those wanting to read more. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Full agreement with TarnishedPath, "labourism" does not belong in the Infobox.-- Autospark (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is ALP really a social-democratic party today? Isn't it New Labor? 95.24.66.215 (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article doesn't say it's social democratic today. New Labor is very much a British thing. The term never became a significant part of political discourse in Australia.