Talk:Democratic Labor Party
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Democratic 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. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Political parties, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of political parties-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to "featured" and "good article" standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. [View this template] |
| Portal | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
What's this "was"? It still has a membership and formal structure, despite not being as active as it was and not having any remaining parliamentary representation.
Technically, the current DLP is not directly linked with the previous DLP as the party was wound up in 1978. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/23/1095651466663.html
The current party is a new party with the same name and some of the old participants. --Peacenik 11:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, a few maybe. The old DLP people are pretty elderly now, and in fact many of them have gone back into the ALP. Most of the current DLP activists are zealous anti-abortionists in their 30s and 40s. Adam 15:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Two articles?
Since the DLP has now become a significant party in Victoria by winning a seat in the Leg Council, I think this article ought to be split in two - Democratic Labor Party (1955-78) and Democratic Labor Party, to distinguish the old party from the current one, which is not legally the same party. This pattern has been established with (oh! irony!) the old and new Communist Party of Australia. The Democratic Labor Party article then needs material about the current party's organisation, leadership, policies etc. Adam 23:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Policy
I think the material under policy is more correctly an individual statement even if it reflects policy, clarification anyone --Matt 12:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Footnote
"In Australia, we need to be told the truth about HIV-AIDS, and it is predominantly a homosexual disease, that is not something that can be disputed."[1]
The link in footnote 1 doesn't even contain this quote. --Joveblue 11:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's true. I have reworded the sentence to reflect the cited source. Euryalus 23:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism
This is obviously a far-right fringe party. Surely a criticism section needs to be included. If citations can be found it should be a high priority. - Mike Beckham 05:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why? The article makes clear where they stand on their politics. Let people make up their own minds. Rebecca 08:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not a fan of "criticism" sections. Just note what other people say about them, which will include both criticism and praise. That's the approach taken at Family First Party and Australian Greens. (Usual disclaimer: I'm a member of the former). Rocksong 10:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Senate
While I don't think they're a prospect anywhere, it's very interesting to note they're running in WA and SA (and possibly other states) for the first time since the 1970s. Any media sources on this and is it worth including? Orderinchaos 21:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
