Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)

SYNTH

TarnishedPath I think the issue here is that this source violates WP:SYNTH. The source does not explicitly or directly call this party conservative, it just talks about a "conservative bloc". This is definitely synthesis of published material to use this source to claim that the party is conservative. Helper201 (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Helper201, it unambiguously refers to Libertarians as being part of the conservative block. Per WP:CALC "Routine calculations do not count as original research". If they are referring to them as being in a "conservative" bloc then they are referring to the whole of its parts as being as such, therefore this is not WP:SYNTH. TarnishedPath^talk 12:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

TarnishedPath, no, its referring to a group (i.e. "bloc") of people as being conservative, not this or any other party. This is evidenced by the fact the article states right after the headline under the photo, "Four of the five conservative MPs", note "MPs", not parties. In no part of the article is there any direct statement that this party is conservative. WP:CALC is in reference to mathematical calculations, i.e. 2 + 2 = 4, not deductions or assumptions from sources by editors, no matter how clear you may think the assumption or indication of the source. The specific claim being added to the Wikipedia page needs to be explicitly stated by the source, which this source does not. The use of this source to claim the party is conservative is a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. Helper201 (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Helper201 from the article:

"It comes after One Nation finalised an alliance with two other conservative minor parties to form a powerful five-member bloc in WA's Upper House, giving it huge power in a chamber where the McGowan Government will have to rely on external support to pass legislation.

One Nation's three successful candidates will be sworn in as MPs next week, after which they say they will work as a bloc with returning Shooters, Fishers and Farmers leader Rick Mazza and new Liberal Democrats MP Aaron Stonehouse."

It's fairly unambiguous. TarnishedPath^talk 12:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

TarnishedPath, you are piecing together bits of the article to form a conclusion which the article does not directly state. The specific claim needs to be explicitly stated by the source i.e. "the conservative Liberal Democratic Party" (as it was then) or "the Liberal Democratic Party is a conservative party". This article does nothing of the sort. Please read through the SYNTH guideline linked above. To quote the SYNTH guideline directly, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." Helper201 (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Helper201, "Do not combine material from multiple sources". Multiple sources? The two paragraphs I quoted above in context are from the SINGLE_SOURCE referring to One Nation forming an alliance with two other conservative minor parties and then in the next paragraph it highlights who those two conservative minor parties are.

Just for clarity, WP:SYNTH is about combining material from multiple sources in a manner that A + B = C. There is no multiple sources here, there is a single source. If you think my reading is askew then perhaps we should raise this at WP:NOR/N. TarnishedPath^talk 12:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

TarnishedPath, I was referring to the second sentence in that quote, "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." SYNTH is not just about multiple sources, as seen from that quote, and the WP:SYNTH link. Helper201 (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Helper201, This is not "different parts of one source" either. The two paragraphs I quoted above a clearly written to be read in context of each other. That is an explicit statement that Shooters, Fishers and Farmers and Liberal Democrats are the "two other conservative minor parties to form a powerful five-member bloc".

Ps, just for clarity, what you are calling WP:SYNTH I understand to be more appropriately called original research and again as stated above those to paragraph don't have separate meaning. The second paragraph clearly expands on the first. It's explicit. TarnishedPath^talk 10:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I still think this constitutes combining elements of the source where the claim being made is not explicitly stated in the source. I think its best we wait for input by other editors unless you change your view. Helper201 (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

No one's replied as yet. Sometimes that's a sign that other editors aren't seeing an issue. TarnishedPath^talk 04:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The word "calculation" in "routine calculations" refers unambiguously to numeric calculations; in other words, what is permitted is simple arithmetic only. Using simple logic to metaphorically "put two and two together" and say what you think a story must mean, is specifically prohibited on Wikipedia. (Read about it under "synthesis".) If there is any use of logic going to be done, that logic must be already published in the reliable source being discussed. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

(Using logic is all right when there is no possible controversy and everyone around the world is absolutely certain to agree, such as "the capital of France" -> "obviously they mean Paris" - but no further than that.) TooManyFingers (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Conservatism

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus that using the ABC article to label the party "conservative" is not synth. There was consensus that TarnishedPath's reading of the source effectively refuted Helper201's argument. Compassionate727's point addresses whether the statement is undue, an issue which is currently being discussed in the following section. Nothing in this close should be construed as addressing that question. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Does this source comply with WP:SYNTH is so far as its use in the ideology section of the infobox to label the party conservative? Helper201 (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

I'd like to see a larger sample size than a single news article from 2017. If that is the only source that mentions this party as conservative, then absolutely not. Curbon7 (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, at issue is the interpretation of an ABC article. For reference the Libertarian Party (Australia) were previously called Liberal Democratic Party (Australia). In the newspaper article they're referred to simply as Liberal Democrats.

From the article are two key paragraphs which read:

"It comes after One Nation finalised an alliance with two other conservative minor parties to form a powerful five-member bloc in WA's Upper House, giving it huge power in a chamber where the McGowan Government will have to rely on external support to pass legislation.

One Nation's three successful candidates will be sworn in as MPs next week, after which they say they will work as a bloc with returning Shooters, Fishers and Farmers leader Rick Mazza and new Liberal Democrats MP Aaron Stonehouse."

I find it clear that the first paragraph I quote directly leads directly into the second. Thus when it is talked about in the first paragraph that "One Nation finalised an alliance with two other conservative minor parties", that leads to it talking about who those parties are in the second paragraph when it states "... after which they say they will work as a bloc with returning Shooters, Fishers and Farmers leader Rick Mazza and new Liberal Democrats MP Aaron Stonehouse". I find this to be explicit. TarnishedPath^talk 21:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

TarnishedPath, As I stated above, is there more than just that one article? Curbon7 (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Curbon7, that's not what the RfC asks. As it is, they're a minor party so they amount of attention they get from the media is always going to be limited. TarnishedPath^talk 21:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I ask that because using one single news article for such heavy lifting crosses straight into WP:UNDUE territory. Multiple sources describe the party as right-wing, so that is not a question, but do multiple sources describe them as explicitly conservative? Curbon7 (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

In Australian political labelling, conservative and right-wing would have at least a 90% overlap. In fact, I cannot think think of an example of where they don't mean virtually the same thing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, that's not what this RfC is about and if that is what you want to discuss we'd have to revaluate claims that they are "Classical liberalism" or "Right-libertarianism". Again. Not what this RfC is about. This RfC is about whether the claim to "conservatism" is WP:SYNTH. I believe I've demonstrated that it clearly isn't because clearly one paragraph leads into the other and therefore the statement that Libertarian Party (Australia) is conservative is explicit in the source. TarnishedPath^talk 13:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Right, I wouldn't necessarily describe it as synthesis. See section below. Curbon7 (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• No. Reasoning outlined in the SYNTH discussion above this. Helper201 (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Helper201 your arguments above in the SYNTH thread rely on a claim that "Conservativism" pulls from different sections of the source. That is erroneous. The two paragraphs in question are one after the other and are clearly meant to be read in context of each other. They are in essence the same section of the source. TarnishedPath^talk 22:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• That is certainly a very... novel interpretation of SYNTH. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. Under this interpretation of SYNTH I could start determining each and every sentence to be a different parts of a source and disregard any ideas I have about context at all. Quite frankly such an idea breaks the English language and renders it next to meaningless for anything but the most basic of communications. TarnishedPath^talk 11:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• No. I understand the impulse, but this is stretching too far. Especially for political labels, which often get tossed around by journalists carelessly. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:35, 17 May 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.

"Conservative"

Are there more sources than just the single ABC News article that describe this party as "conservative". If not, then this likely would not meet the threshold of inclusion, as we cannot make controversial claims relying on just a single source. Curbon7 (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Note that I'm not saying that we need to have a million citations citing it, I'd just like to see more than one source using the term. Curbon7 (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Curbon7, I think the policy you're referencing when you say "we cannot make controversial claims relying on just a single source" is WP:CONTENTIOUS. Please refer to WP:CONTENTIOUS for a list of contentious labels. The word conservative is not one of them, nor can it be considered anywhere close to them. Per HiLo above in Australian political labelling there is strong overlap between what is termed right-wing and conservative. Calling the party conservative is certainly not contentious per the MOS and there is nothing any more controversial about it than calling them right-wing. Note, there have been previous discussions on the party and right-wing and there is plenty of sourcing.

Notably the claim to "Classical liberalism" also only has single source in the article, which is referenced to The Spectator. Notably The Spectator is not WP:GREL. Additionally the claim to "Right-libertarianism" also only has as single source in the article which is referenced to an opinion piece. If we were going to call anything controversial they would more fit the bill. However, that's not what the RfC above is about. This whole discussion is a bit of a side track. TarnishedPath^talk 00:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

However, that's not what the RfC above is about, which is why I opened a separate discussion. And yes, if the sources used to support other claims are unreliable, then new sources should be found and failing that those claims should be removed. Curbon7 (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

You miss the part where I point out above that conservative is not on the list of WP:CONTENTIOUS labels which would require strong sourcing? Or that in Australia there is strong overlap between the terms conservative and right-wing? I'm not seeing that you really have any argument. TarnishedPath^talk 02:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree with @Curbon7. There is no requirement for every claim published in RS to be added to the infobox. If it's just one source, it may not be WP:DUE. Alaexis_¿question? 09:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Were we to go with that position we would rip entirely every political position/ideology out of the infobox with the exception of "right-wing". Even "libertarian" might be removed due to lack of WP:GUNREL sourcing. TarnishedPath^talk 07:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If the ABC News source is the only one available describing the party as "conservative", then I don't think that description should appear in the infobox or article. Libertarians (and libertarian parties) do not necessarily identify as conservative, so a source that actually discusses some of the party's positions and why they are conservative would be preferable to what is effectively an offhand remark in an article about one state parliament. ITBF (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that they are a minor party, so there's not always going to be much reliable souring about them. That said were we to take that approach to all of their political positions/ideologies we would probably end up removing everything, including libertarisism, and only be left with "right-wing". "right-wing" is the only descriptor which has plenty of sourcing in reliable sources. What libertarian parties generally identify as doesn't really come into it. We have a party called the Liberal Party of Australia which has politics which are not entirely what you'd expect if you only went by their name alone. TarnishedPath^talk 13:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Then remove them. It's an infobox; it's supposed to summarize key, uncontroversial points from the article. It doesn't need to include everything, and shouldn't include things that are somewhat tenuous like this. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)