Talk:Labor Left

Jacobin

I've just removed a section that was recently added which was heavily supported by opinion pieces/editorials from Jacobin (magazine) and elsewhere. After I did that I noticed that Jacobin is in the reference list twice. The pieces are opinion and I'm going to tag all occurrences as better source needed when I have time. TarnishedPath^talk 01:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Fabian Social Democracy

Just wondering if the link of 'social democracy' should link to the fabians page too as that strain of social democracy is akin to a democratic socialist or new leftist position. Currently the Fabians society much like in the UK look towards some kind of new socialist "Just write policy" approach.

Or maybe it could link to a specific section of the social democrat page? Fine either way but I think readers clicking on it may get the impression of a modern European or USA strain of that ideology when they see or click on it. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Should this faction be considered left-wing?

Hi there,

I am writing this message as @DirectorDirectorDirector and @GlowstoneUnknown have been edit warring over whether this faction's political orientation should be included and whether it is indeed left-wing. In their edit summaries, GlowstoneUnknown has been arguing that this is a violation of Wikipedia's policy on original research. Interestingly, the political orientation on the article for Labor Right has been removed but no edit war has occurred there. I'm sure sources do exist to support this faction's political orientation, but as per the policy on verifiability, anything that could be docuted must be sourced to a reliable source inline.

Hope I haven't left out any details!

Thanks for helping find a consensus. Qwerty123M (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

All that matters to me is that, if a political position is to be included, it needs to be supported by WP:RS. It's been unsourced for months, so I removed it. Longstanding consensus shouldn't take precedence over Wikipedia's content policies. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:32, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Just as soon as this discussion has started, it may be over because @DirectorDirectorDirector has finally added some reliable sources and if there are no other complaints we can close this discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are issues with several of the sources:

• Leigh, Andrew (2000). "Factions and Fractions: A Case Study of Power Politics in the Australian Labor Party". Australian Journal of Political Science. 35 (3). Routledge: 427–448. doi:10.1080/713649348.

A very old source that I can't access currently, but the abstract doesn't seem to cover a specific description of the faction on the political spectrum.

• Curtis, Lyndal (25 October 2010). "Labor Left calls for MP gags to be lifted". The World Today. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 30 June 2026.

The only mention of "left-wing" is the phrase "left wing of the Labor Party", clearly referring only to a political spectrum within the party, and not on the general political spectrum.

• "Labor Left wing delegate calls on his faction to accept boat turnbacks as part of broader policy". RN Breakfast. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 30 June 2015. Retrieved 30 June 2026.

Only refers to a single delegate with the phrase "left wing", also likely talking about the party spectrum.

• Murphy, Katharine (7 October 2018). "Labor's left wing growing uneasy about Nauru children and Pacific trade deal". The Guardian. Retrieved 30 June 2026.

Another case of the source clearly referring to the party's spectrum, not the broader one.

• Curtis, Lyndal (25 October 2010). "Labor Left calls for MP gags to be lifted". The World Today. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 30 June 2026.

Duplicate of a previous source. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:52, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

"Factions and Fractions: A Case Study of Power Politics in the Australian Labor Party"

I will add the following archive. The source is still publically hosted there but it does seem like most computers will flag it as 'dangerous' due to the poorly maintained site.

https://web.archive.org/web/20250513171804/https://andrewleigh.org/pdf/Factions(AJPS).pdf

"Labor Left calls for MP gags to be lifted"

Stating that a member of the "Socialist Left" is in the "The left-wing" of a Centre-left party seems by WP:COMMONSENSE to pretty clearly present the faction as left-wing.

"Labor Left wing delegate calls on his faction to accept boat turnbacks as part of broader policy"

It states that the Labor left delegate is "Left wing" and then states that the faction is left of the party.

It is enough of a source to provide a basis that the factions elected members are "Left wing"

-Duplicated Source- DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Those arguments are WP:SYNTH, though. Those sources don't describe it as a "left wing of a centre-left party", they just describe it as on the party's left, whilst other sources call the party as a whole "centre-left". – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:16, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

We don't really need to include the political orientation of this faction in the infobox of this article because the Australian Labor Party article contains a high-level overview of their main policies. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree, this article shouldn't have content in the position parameter of the infobox. There just isn't enough sourcing that passes the explicit support threshold. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:23, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the average reader likely need the Left-Right hook to understand the context and motivation in which the faction is operating. But It at this juncture does seem like most people are leaning towards removing the classification (GlowstoneUnknowns original preference) DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 11:25, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm amenable to a removal of the ideological leaning all together while a wider site wide discussion and RfC is had in either Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics or Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Politics DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I've moved to WP:TRYTOFIXPROBLEMS just for you. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics, Wikipedia talk:Australian Wikipedians' notice board, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Socialism, Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Political parties, User talk:DirectorDirectorDirector and User talk:GlowstoneUnknown. Qwerty123M (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

(Saw the notice on WikiProject Socialism) The sources @DirectorDirectorDirector added are from 2000, 2010, 2015, 2018 and 2010, respectively. The most recent source, the 7-year-old one talks about the Labor Left being the left wing of the ALP, not in general. We definitely need more recent sources to describe the party today.

I found a SPS source by a former Australian MP and someone who is a politically active socialist in Australia, and he writes: The Australian Labor Party (ALP) originated from the Australian Left but today is a centrist political party. While many of its members hold left-wing beliefs, the party adopted light neoliberal policies in the 20th century. and On the national political spectrum, the ALP sits to the left of the Liberal Party, the National Party, as well as the far-right One Nation and Australia First parties. However, the ALP’s position on the spectrum is to the right of The Greens and a number of smaller parties, which now represent much of Australia’s remaining socialist movement. source While that is an SPS and probably can't be used, it is corroborated by WP:RS:

• CNN article from 2025 calls the ALP a "center-left" party.
• The Guardian article from 2026 calls them a "centrist" party.
• abp news article from 2025 calls them a "centre-left" party.

Perhaps "centre-left" is a better descriptor of their political position. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 10:52, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The trouble is that those "centre-left" sources refer to the party as a whole, not specifically the faction. It's difficult to find sources talking about party factions in general, so I'm of the opinion that factions generally shouldn't have political positions included in infoboxes unless a notable amount of sources are found that actively describe it on the spectrum. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:00, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

If ALP is centrist, then the left wing of the ALP would be centre-left (but that could be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH). If we can't find better sources, then I'd also be OK with removing "Political position" from the infobox altogether; leaving in the "Ideology" parameter. We can discuss where they are on the spectrum in relation to ALP in general and Labor Right in particular in the body. If we can't be sure, then it probably shouldn't be in the infobox. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 11:07, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my preferred solution to this content dispute (removing the parameter altogether and leaving the ideology parameter as is). I just haven't seen any compelling sourcing that passes WP:V and WP:NOR for this. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:12, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

The articles link speak of the party itself as being centre-left. So wouldn't meet the threshold of WP:RS for the claim on the faction itself. (But may be wise to be added to the ALP Wiki).

The articles given indicate that of the Centre-Left party the "Socialist left" is considered "Left-wing" with half the articles just calling them "left-wing" where as others do as you stated call them the "Left-wing" of the party.

Along with this there is verifiable sources calling the factions Socialist and Democratic Socialist. Per WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:ADHERENCE, the article should not treat basic political classifications as mysterious where the sourced ideology is democratic socialism, which Wikipedia (and by extension the cited academic sources) itself describes as a left-wing set of political philosophies. The issue should be resolved by improving the sourcing or wording, not by repeatedly deleting sourceable content. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

A reminder about WP:SYNTH, a source describing X as Y and another source describing Y as Z does not mean X can be reasonably described as Z, as that's a conclusion neither source comes to. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:06, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

In the respect to classifications of political ideology classing "Social Democrats" as "Centre-Left" and "Democratic Socialists" or "Marxists" as "Left-wing" is the current standard.

We'd need to open a talk on WP:Australian politics and WP:Politics to overhaul the whole consensus and get a RfC.

Otherwise It just truly to me seems against the grain of the site to not call a Democratic Socialist faction that also includes Entryist Communists a "Left-wing" grouping because we cant find a paper saying "This faction is Left-wing in the general political sense" and can only find sources saying it's the Left-wing of a Centre-left party. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

As I said before, no source describes it as "the left wing of a centre-left party". That's still original research through synthesis. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 11:25, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I've no sources or policies to cite, so disregard my comment if you so wish. All I know from years of following politics and editing Wikipedia is that GlowstoneUnknown is correct, it shouldn't say "Left-Wing" here. I would go so far as to dispute the ideology of the Labor Left being Democratic Socialism too. Social Democratic sure, but not Democratic Socialist. That said, I'm not too interested in having a debate over this as it will no doubt spill into a political debate, and I'd like to refrain from sharing my political views on this platform. Viatori (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with GlowstoneUnknown's concern that the sourcing added by DirectorDirectorDirector is subpar, to say the least. A number of these only refer to individual members of the party, and I don't think saying that the faction is "on the party's left" is substantive enough for what we want here. The ideal here would be contemporary independent sources analysing its ideology, which seem to not really exist. I conducted my own search for recent scholarly sources and could not find any. I have read the Leigh source and it does really not make a lot of overt ideological pronouncements -- in fact on page 435 it states "The disagreements within Young Labor had some grounding in ideology but were mostly personality-based." There is some mention of the Left rising in reaction to Hawke and Keating (and being against privatisation on p.443), as well as a number of policy divides within the left caucus (p.443-444), and Leigh states on p.445 that "More generally, there are also signs that the driving ideologies of the faction are changing. The overt class analysis of former NSW Left frontbenchers Stewart West, Arthur Gietzelt and Tom Uren is a far cry from the philosophy of the current representatives, be they Hard Left or Soft Left. The ideological crisis of social democracy in the Western world has wrought its effect on the Left too, creating ‘a galaxy of inter-related groupings’ across the Federal parliamentary caucus", and describes them on the next page as "largely preoccupied with power" vs "ideas and issues". Regardless, this is now over 25 years old, but I would not say this supports a characterisation of Labor Left as left-wing, and with this being one of the most reliable sources we have (and expressing quite a bit of skepticism on whether the faction is properly left-wing at all), I would advise against describing the party as left-wing in the infobox. (Let alone democratic socialism.) --LivelyRatification (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I have not done my own research on this but I do not think any of the provided sources on the article support the faction being described as 'democratic socialist' either. McAllister from 1991 states that the Socialist Left "emphasizes what it sees as the "true" socialist objectives as contained in the ALP's 1921 platform, "the socialization of industry, production, distribution and exchange"", and Barry et al. from 2023 says on page 109 (not page 253) that "The right-wing factions tend to adhere to labourism and social-democratic traditions, while the left-wing factions are more supportive of democratic-socialist objectives". One is from 30+ years ago, describing a faction that is different from the modern left, while the other speaks in very broad terms. The latter would be appropriate as a supplementary source, I would suggest, and the former not at all. I could not fully access the New Left review source but the excerpt I see seems to imply an analysis similar to the Leigh source. LivelyRatification (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I think a publication from the University of Sydney, (Australian Politics and Policy< Senior Edition) is quite clearly strong enough to support democratic socialism being listed as an ideology for the Labor Left.

The source does not just vaguely say the faction is on the left of the party. It first outlines three broad policy traditions in the Labor Party today; labourism, democratic socialism and social democracy. It then says these traditions underpin the factions in the Labor Party, before directly stating that “the right-wing factions tend to adhere to labourism and social-democratic traditions, while the left-wing factions are more supportive of democratic-socialist objectives.”

So in context, this is not just some random passing line. The publication is directly explaining how Labor’s policy traditions relate to the party’s factions, and it directly links the left-wing factions with democratic-socialist objectives. I think that is quite clearly indicative and strong enough to keep democratic socialism in the ideology box. PsyloAlpha (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

[...] supportive of democratic socialist objectives doesn't pass WP:NOR and/or WP:V, it's a throwaway remark that doesn't even explicitly refer to Labor Left (only "the left-wing factions" more broadly), and it doesn't use wording like "adheres to democratic socialism" or "has democratic socialist policies", only "supportive of democratic socialist objectives", which is a very broad statement and can be read in multiple ways. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 04:42, 8 July 2026 (UTC)