Talk:Democratic Labor Party (Australia, 1955)

Untitled
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)

Split: To Democratic Labour Party (Australia, 1980)
Proposed we split this article into two - this stays the main article, with a slight renaming to Democratic Labor Party (historical) (the old DLP never used a 'U', the new one does. Democratic Labour Party (Australia, 1980) is for the party that continued by a few small members onwards.

The original DLP voted to disband in 1978, and this is reflected in the article's huge gap from 1979 until 2006. The DLP Vice-President confirmed in this talk section last year that original DLP's last branch in Victoria disbanded in 1978, it did not continue to operate independently.

This is not entirely dissimilar from the Family First Party/Family First Party (2021) situation - they claim similarity and have links to the old party, but they are not the same.

Election articles even represent the two DLP's differently - historical with the colour teal, modern with the colour gold.

Even the DLP themselves, while claiming links to the old party (a claim that holds as much weight as Clive Palmer claiming his UAP is the historical UAP) they acknowledge the changes from 1978 onwards. https://dlp.org.au/the-dlp-an-authentic-labour-party/

These are different parties and two articles would reflect that clearly. Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support for reasons stated. Despite frequent depictions of the parties possessing continuity, the present-day organisation is not the same as the historical one, despite sharing some individuals. I have no objection to the proposed names, but I am not sure we need "(historical)" for the original DLP? Should the articles instead be "Democratic Labor Party (Australia, 1955)" and "Democratic Labour Party (Australia, 1980)"? In any case, I support the split either way. Axver (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'd be happy with that name suggestion too, as long as we don't have "Democratic Labour Party (Australia)" (the current name) for the new page as that'd very likely disrupt a lot of editing work previously when I'd bet most links to this page are referring to the 1955-1978 party Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like at least some disaffected members of the original DLP stood in the 1979 Victorian state election under the DLP name, keeping in mind that at the time rules about party names were much more loose than the registration requirements of today and might not signify much, if any, formal organisation. What is clear is that the last branch (the Vic one) of the original DLP dissolved on 3 March 1978, and the current party calling itself the DLP is an identically-named but separate party, which should have its own page. So, instead of "Democratic Labour Party (Australia, 1980)", it should be 1979—or even 1978 if there's a source showing the successors using the old name straight away. Also, on the naming format, I notice the UK uses Democratic Labour Party (UK, 1972) and Democratic Labour Party (UK, 1998), so I think that gives us precedent to use "Australia, 1955" for the original iteration. Axver (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep I'm happy to support 1979 over 1980 for the newer party's page name, 1978 is possible as the year but 1979 is the only definitive one so yeah Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Axver you've said that the Victorian branch was the last branch of the DLP - what's the basis for this? Contemporary reporting doesn't agree with this: quotes DLP federal president as stating other state branches "maintaining a holding position",  states the NSW branch still exists, albeit moribund,  states the NSW state council will hold a meeting in June 1978 to discuss the organisation's future. ITBF (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I further note that, as earlier as May 1978, the president of the so-called "continuity DLP" was being acknowledged as such in the media, with no clarification - which strongly suggests that it was considered the same party. ITBF (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter if the media "considered [it] the same party"; the question for us is whether it was actually the same party. Axver (talk) 10:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Mate, read up on this very Talk page to the "accuracy" section. Axver (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - the claim to re-merge the pages back in 2020 (where it said it was because the Vic branch never dissolved) is false and other sources support that it's two different DLPs AmNowEurovision (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * User:AmNowEurovision which sources? ITBF (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. What academic or other sources consider there to have been two separate parties? Just because one state branch of a party goes into a temporary abeyance doesn't mean it needs a separate article - we don't split out the separate iterations of Clive Palmer's UAP or One Nation each time they fall away or get deregistered, because they're the same political organisation with the same goals and the same people involved. The proposer's claim that the DLP acknowledges it's a separate party founded in 1978 states no such thing. ITBF (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You're claiming I said things I didn't say - DLP acknowledged the big difference from 1978 onwards but still claims they're the same party is what I said.
 * "..we don't split out the separate iterations of One Nation" yes we do, see One Nation NSW
 * Undoubtedly the final DLP branch - Victoria - voted to disband in 1978, that is cited in the article.
 * The Age: "..a party that was formally wound up by its members in 1978, a decision resisted by Mr Mulholland and former DLP luminary Frank McManus. They resolved to carry the name forward.." https://www.theage.com.au/national/dlp-fights-for-a-traditional-voter-20040924-gdyolx.html
 * ANU says the original DLP was 1955-78 https://archivescollection.anu.edu.au/index.php/democratic-labor-party Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Wikipedia is based upon reliable, published sources (WP:ORIGINAL), with a preference for secondary sources, not independent original research. "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."
 * There are countless published secondary sources (rather than unreliable talk page 'sources') that call it a continuation, similarly to the DLP's about page (describing it as mostly dying out in 1978 but continuing). Note that there is also an ongoing commentary about John Madigan being the first DLP parliamentarian in 40 years, and about how the party 65 years after the split has de-registered. Catiline52 (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Resharing from a previous comment here but I think the Age and the ANU are widely considered reliable sources on this
 * "..a party that was formally wound up by its members in 1978, a decision resisted by Mr Mulholland and former DLP luminary Frank McManus. They resolved to carry the name forward.." [6https://www.theage.com.au/national/dlp-fights-for-a-traditional-voter-20040924-gdyolx.html ]
 * ANU says the original DLP was 1955-78 [7https://archivescollection.anu.edu.au/index.php/democratic-labor-party ]
 * Plus The Age (referend on the main page) which clearly says the final original DLP branch voted to dissolve in 1978.
 * Again, see the "Accuracy" section on this talk page - the DLP Vice-President very clearly stating "DLP members who lost the vote formed a new DLP" Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Totallynotarandomalt69 see the sources from 1978 above which clearly state the Victorian branch was not the final DLP branch. ITBF (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. The original DLP was born of the back of the great Labor party split. What exists now is an entirely different beast. TarnishedPathtalk 11:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I will suggest the older one to be named Democratic Labor Party (1955–1978) and the current one just Democratic Labour Party (Australia) (as the formation year is debatable, but definitely a different entity, but it is a current entity so there is no need to list years). The current DLP is an immediate revival of the party name at a significantly smaller scale while the previous DLP ceased to exist.  Marc nut 1996  (talk) 07:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree that for any split, the old party should have the year in it, whether Democratic Labor Party (1955–1978), or Democratic Labor Party (Australia, 1955–1978). The latter is a little unwieldy but might fit in with precedent better. But the article title needs to clearly state it is not the current party (if we do decide to split the article, I personally don't have a firm opinion either way) MarkiPoli (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Reasons stated and having two separate parties in the same article makes no sense. It's not a Tasmanian Nationals situation where it's clearly the same party with the same principles disbanding and reforming. Split the article. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I reckon surely an admin can close this discussion now? I'm ready to split the pages but don't think I can be the one to close this Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 08:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * How do we send a notif to the admins again? It's some Template, right? GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably, I'm stunned it hasn't been picked up yet since yours was the first comment since October and this began in August Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I reckon just split the article if you're up to it and add to this discussion some comment asking admins to close it. Maybe try bringing this up on Discussions for discussion too. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm up for it but am I just really conscious with breaking any written/unwritten rules here until an admin formally closes this
 * (This is a formal request for an admin to close this discussion by the way)
 * Obviously "support" has won out here though so it seems pretty clear Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think at this point just go for it, as long as you have enough sources for the new page I think you'll be fine. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah I've had it in sandbox for a while Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah that looks pretty great to me, I don't think you're likely to get into trouble for splitting it since we've got broad consensus. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised to see this is still open to be honest. Axver (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * same here GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly, at this point, I think you'd be better off just going for it and splitting the article, it's been too long without an admin stepping in and they can't complain about it with the broad consensus we have GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just thought you should know, I put in a closure request here, so hopefully an admin gets onto it soon. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, cheers Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 3 April 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus already reached. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 09:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Democratic Labor Party (historical) → Democratic Labor Party (Australia, 1955) – Not the only defunct politicial party with this name. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support Buidhe (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 17:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per nom.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Given this was the original Australian party why would we use a date? Shouldn't it be Democratic Labor Party (Australia) and can someone explain to me why that is a redirect to the 1980 party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TarnishedPath (talk • contribs) 00:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably that redirect should be disambiguated. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I disambiguated it already. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Support as there are several other historical Democratic Labo(u)r parties. Number   5  7  11:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)