Talk:City of Willoughby

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Infobox Update[edit]

This page has had its infobox updated to Infobox Australian Place. This update has been automatically preformed by TheJoshBot. Please be aware that poorly filled templates can have infomation lost in the transition that is unknown to the bot. Check the page history for more infomation. The following infomation has been lost in the transition, and will need to be converted to the document prose:

Field Name Field Value
council Willoughby City Council
ausborn 56
atsi 0.16
statistical_local_area 8250

RfC Use Independent Liberal/Labor terms[edit]

The use of "Independent Liberal/Labor" is a term that is not permitted in elections for parties/candidates or for electoral material, so to use them in lists like these is completely erroneous. Under sections 64 and 180 of the Electoral Act 2017, this is not permitted. You may include a reference to individual party membership in the notes section, but they do not sit under this label, they were not elected as such, they are not permitted to use such labels under NSW law, and it is misleading to describe them so.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First off, no disputing from me that officially these terms cannot be used on a ballot in NSW and they are illegal - thankfully, Wikipedia infoboxes are not bound by NSW Electoral Act.
As referenced on the page, these respective councillors have self-declared their party memberships, so them being party members is also something that cannot be disputed.
But these infoboxes are also meant to be informative, and describing them as an "independent" ignores that they are - an unendorsed party member, which is exactly where Independent Liberal/Labor labels fit in (as the respective pages for those affilaitions state).
It's not just Willoughby - other councils in NSW, including in 2021, have Ind Lib/Lab councillors precisely to accurately and simply to describe them (see here). Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a reference to informal party affiliation as that is indeed informative and useful, but not including the terms in the official list of parties/affiliations as that is not how they are elected (and they literally cannot be elected as such). Self-published sources like the tally room are not reliable sources, and nowhere in the Willoughby Living article does it use the term "independent liberal" or "independent labor". I can't find any reliable references that this term has been used officially or unofficially to describe these councillors, so it is inaccurate in any case.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 09:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Totallynotarandomalt69 on this one, I fail to see a legitimate reason to remove them. 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The term is illegal in NSW, and there are no references to back up use of the term. Are they not legitimate reasons? Siegfried Nugent (talk) 09:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry what do you mean "no references"? In the message above I cited both the affiliations and the exact term "Independent Liberal" being used at the 2021 local elections! Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No you haven't, both links you used don't back up your argument. The Tally Room is a self-published source. Willoughby Living doesn't even use the terms. You must CITE your sources. I can't find any independent reliable references that back up your use of the term for any Willoughby Councillor, or any other NSW councillor for that matter.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I can't find any independent reliable references that back up your use of the term for any Willoughby Councillor, or any other NSW councillor for that matter" because the term is all over the place - "unendorsed Liberal" "Liberal but not endorsed" etc - all of these count as an INDLIB
Also The Tally Room is a source often cited by reputable publications, come on don't resort to attacking the source Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. So you can't claim to use the terms as the only undisputed term. As I said, they should not be used as official descriptors in party lists, but a reference to party membership is useful and I would support that. But "Independent Liberal/Labor" are disputed terms that have very limited use. The Tally room is a useful source, but at the moment it is your only source, and as a self-published source that's not good if we're looking to provide properly referenced articles that accurately present information and don't use terms that aren't used in real life to describe particular people. The Willoughby Living article doesnt even use those terms, with one of the councillors saying: "I am a member of the Liberal Party, but not endorsed, so I am free to act as I see fit." and "I have liberal party membership but sit on council as a full independent."Siegfried Nugent (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - We would never classify federal or state members as fully independent if they were indeed members of a party, why should we classify local councillors any differently? AmNowEurovision (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the references that use this term? If its an invented term, it has no place here. Siegfried Nugent (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 also bans the term. Do you have any examples where we describe current or recent politicians with the term?Siegfried Nugent (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Independent Liberal: https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/politics/controversial-mp-moira-deeming-to-sue-liberal-leader-after-party-expulsion/news-story/50cc115564d4c2f77d7e0fe7495493fc
Independent Labor: https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/hobart-mornings/david-obyrne-to-seek-labor-party-preselection/102696486
Both from 2023 Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 09:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One is for a Tasmanian Labor MP, and one is for a victorian liberal MP. Do you have any relevant examples of the term in NSW or indeed Willoughby Council? Siegfried Nugent (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the Victorian Electoral Act 2002 also bans the term, so while Ms Deeming might be described in some articles as an "Independent Liberal" she cannot sit in parliament, describe herself, or be elected, using such a term. In any case there aren't any recent examples of it being used in a NSW or Willoughby context.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note the Victorian Parliament uses the term Independent Liberal for Deeming: https://new.parliament.vic.gov.au/4ae064/globalassets/hansard-daily-pdfs/hansard-974425065-23645/hansard-974425065-23645.pdf
However that's not who we are discussing here so I digress Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I note also that The Tally Room didn't even look at the Willoughby Council election for the 2021 local government elections, so I fail to see how that can be used as a source to describe the afiliations or parties of Willoughby City Councillor, so there are no references provided for the use of the terms "Independent Liberal/Labor" to refer to Willoughby City Councillors.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you agree these councillors have, at the bare minimum, described themselves as a party member yet not endorsed?
Independent Liberal (Australia): "Independent Liberal is a description used in Australian politics, often to designate a politician who is a Liberal Party member but not endorsed by the party at elections"
Independent Labor (Australia): "Independent Labor is a description used in Australian politics, often to designate a politician who is an Australian Labor Party member but not endorsed by the party at elections"
The labels being used here are accurate! Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not reliable references, using articles that you created doesn't make it any more true. You have yet to provide any reference to these Willoughby Councillors using, being elected as, or being described with those terms. I don't dispute that some of the councillors are members of a political party, and including that information is relevant and useful; my disupute is with the terms "Independent Liberal/Labor" and including them in the official party lists/descriptors. Again I would support a small line in the "Notes" column saying "Member of the Liberal Party" or as such, but they must be referenced as well.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are literally arguing for the same thing here - a clunky notes section referencing the exact same thing as the Ind Lib/Lab pages state clearly (again, there are references!)
"I am a member of the Liberal Party, but not endorsed" means the exact same thing as Independent Liberal Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 10:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. Including that term in the party name column means that it is an official description, while a disclosure of party membership does not mean that we can just just use that term as they were officially elected as independents, and I don't think Willoughby Council has ever had endorsed Liberal party candidates. There is a reason why such a term is officially banned in NSW and federal elections. Also you don't have any reference that specifically uses the term "Independent Liberal/Labor".Siegfried Nugent (talk) 10:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's references citing an INDLIB for other councils in NSW 2021
There's references citing exactly what an INDLIB is being stated without using that exact term Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So none for Willoughby and none specifically using that term in an official context. The Tally Room used it for some minor descriptors in a couple of the few Councils he covered, but that is your only source, and certainly none that refer to any Willoughby City Councillors. I would support a small line in the "Notes" column saying "Member of the Liberal Party" or similar, but to use the term "Independent Liberal/Labor" in a NSW context is not only not permitted, but is adding a quasi-official descriptor that has never been appended to any of these people.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day "Independent Liberal/Labor" are not officially recognised party labels in NSW, and should not be included in party lists. That doesn't mean that such terms can be useful shorthand to describe certain politicians (such as in news articles or election coverage blogs like the Tally Room), and is useful information for the average reader, but they should not be confused with official parties/affiliations, which is what including them in the party column does.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've just listed a bunch of great reasons for including the terms
I will note you brought this discussion to have consensus and so far it's 3 people supporting the terms v 1 (you) so unless we see a substantial change soon then it seems fair for the terms to be returned
Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not achieved by a poll, it is by the quality of argument, and I have yet to see a convincing reason why deploying "Independent Liberal/Labor" in a column listing official parties is appropriate. The other two editors have not engaged with the substantive arguments put forward and have not present a convincing case of why it should be used as you would prefer.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you're saying the most and replying the most doesn't mean you have the best argument nor get to decide that as a sole editor who is equal with the rest of us here
I'll repeat what I said before: a footnote saying "member of the Liberals but unendorsed" etc is just a clunkier way to say Independent Liberal which is what they are
Really doesn't see why using the term is an issue Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I did have the best argument, merely saying "3 vs 1" is not an argument in your favour. I would agree to including a line in the notes to such effect ("NSW Liberal Party member" or similar), but you don't seem to understand that "Independent Liberal/Labor" is a disputed term and should not be used to describe people who have never used or had it used by others to describe them, particularly when it is a prohibited term in elections and in an official context. You have not been able to back up your arguments with sufficient reliable sources to support such an inclusion. At the very least, there are no references that support inclusion of the terms in a Willoughby Council context.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about instead of including an additional line in the notes column, we included an explanatory footnote next to the official party for each relevant councillor, rather than changing the official party list (Like this:[a])
  1. ^ Unendorsed member of the NSW Liberal Party.

Would that be an acceptable solution to you? Siegfried Nugent (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Siegfried's compromise Since the label is not only informal but technically forbidden, we don't use it in tabular information; but if we have a reliable source, we use a footnote which defines the concept and links to our article on the matter. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand where Siegfried is coming from on this but I don't feel the necessity to add a footnote when there already is a perfectly acceptable term - Independent Liberal/Labor - that describes "unendorsed member of the" etc etc
    Yes, for this one council in this one election the exact label isn't there but we have to think realistically here - what the councillors have described as their own affiliations meets what an IndLib/IndLab is Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By your own admission there aren't any references to back up use of this term, particularly in a Willoughby context. Using this term in the absence of reliable sources that prove: a. they use this term, b. this term has been applied to them by others, or c. that this term is a commonly accepted and allowed term to describe particular people (at the very least in a NSW context, the state that Willoughby is in and is subject to the laws of), is using original research. Saying "they are x, therefore we can call them y" in the absence of reliable sources, and using sources that don't even use the term or apply it to other people not relevant to this page is WP:SYNTH. So no, it isn't a "perfectly acceptable term", as demonstrated by this discussion.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If they were not affiliated with a political party on the ballot, then they are independent. Yes, they might be a member of a political party but they might be a member of a stamp collecting club too. Many council candidates believe that party politics isn't helpful in local government and this is why they do not stand as a member of a political party. If elected an an independent, then that is what they are. 09:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC) Kerry (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:City_of_Willoughby&oldid=1200930113"