Talk:Katter's Australian Party/Archive 1

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

Political Spectrum

I believe it is inaccurate and an oversimplification to categorise the KAP's political position as "Right-wing". There are elements of traditional right- and left- wing politics in the KAP policy. KAP's economic policies are closer to Distributism than the traditional Right-wing and has more in common with Agrarian left-wing movements. Collincentre (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. I came to the discussion for that very reason. While the KAP's platform consists largely of similarities to current Australian center-right politics, especially on social issues, the core of the economic policy is very left wing. Renationalisation is neither an issue in centre-right or centre-left politics, it is a very leftist economic standpoint. Protectionism is also marketly different from the laissez-faire plateform of right-wing parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.169.54 (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed and seconded. Pigeonholing the party into a single category is neither easily achieved nor appropriate; while a handful of party's policies are socially conservative, to call the party 'right wing' is both inaccurate and borderline slanderous. Until someone can come along with a better description, I'm changing the position from 'Right Wing' to 'Centrist/Distributist' --Headwerkn (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Even though it mightn't be strictly accurate, that's probably the best description I can think of since the attitudes and policies don't neatly fall onto the modern political spectrum of left/right. --Coagmano (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I've made changes to the political ideologies, by adding Agrarian Socialism and removing the conservative tag, as the party's economic policies border near the far-left. Also I think it would be inappropriate to class KAP as a Centrist party. The party constitution clearly states an MP or Senator with the party can put forward their own policies, particularly social ones and put their electorate first as long as it is in line with KAP's constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austrollolol (talk • contribs) 10:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that KAP's policies cannot be neatly called right-wing, like economically I'd describe them as quite left-wing (based on what is said in the policies section, anyway), but socially they're quite conservative. Might I propose we simply omit that descriptor from the infobox? Sort of like what's done on the Australian Greens page, as while many of us feel they're left-wing, some disagree and think their social democratic attitudes are more centrist, and as we couldn't agree, we settled with omitting it altogether. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 14:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree that KAP shouldn't be labelled "right-wing", but I think it's odd to call their economic policies "left-wing" since they're a very narrow slice of what could be called "economic authoritarianism" that people these days won't recognise as "left-wing". They're closer to what protectionists from before the 1940s wanted, and maybe back then they would have been labelled "left-wing". I also recall Bob Katter Jr. himself dismissing the label "right-wing" on the 7:30 Report a few years back (although I haven't found any record of this).
The problem is that sources considered reliable have labelled KAP "right-wing", even the ABC, though they haven't been used as a reference for this on this page. I'd call it a mix of lazy journalism and a persistent tendency for people to try to fit political parties on a neat one- or two-dimensional continuum.
We need to either go with reliable sources or exclude the information entirely, so on this point I would agree we should exclude the "Political position" from the infobox on this page. Consensus appears to be against keeping the label "right-wing" at any rate, so I'll remove it.
Looking back at the history, it appears it was re-added by an IP user in June 2011 after it had been removed, edit has no summary either. It's funny that it's taken almost nine years for anyone to notice this and remove it again.
DpEpsilon ( talk | contribs ) 09:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

"...came within 6000 votes of winning four more (seats)"

The heading is a quote from the Elections section. What does it mean? I have a theory, which I'll keep to myself at this stage, but I suspect it could be explained a little better. HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, User:Timeshift9 has been bolder than me and simply removed the claim. I support that action. HiLo48 (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
It means exactly what it says. The party came within 6000 votes of winning four more seats. What more explanation does this need? It's a very simple statement of fact, and it's sourced, so there is no basis for deleting it. -- GertBySea (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Which 6000 votes? Does it matter where they were? (Of curse it does.) 6000 votes across the state, or in particular seats? Which seats? Source it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The 'source' in The Age article is a report by KAP, accompanied by Bob Katter once again claiming that someone other than the KAP was at fault for the stuff up through which the party's name didn't appear on ballet papers (despite the court findings blaming the party exclusively for that mess). It's a silly statement as the fact of the matter is that the party did as well as it did. If there were some close results the article could identify them, but including this kind of vague figure is just silly. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Katter made a lot of noise about this, and if it were to be included it should be as a "Katter claimed ...". The only other seat they came remotely close to winning was Thuringowa (which probably should be mentioned somewhere). I don't know which other three Katter means, but whichever they are it's pretty clear he's making use of his well-known skill for overstating the fact (remember when he thought they were going to win 20?). Frickeg (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


Policies: criticism of anti-gay statements

I added some mention of the controversy around the anti-gay statements made by some candidates to the 'policies' section. The articles for other Australian political parties usually include such material in a 'History' section. It might be desirable to reorganise the article to combine some of the Queensland state politics material, and a basic background, with this info in a new 'History' section. miracleworker5263 (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This got deleted by someone. It already seemed suspicious that this article contains no stances on social issues, which you would normally attribute to right wing parties. Yet the info box clearly says that the party is nationalistic. This is the relevant edit. --2003:71:F53:4500:C421:5E35:6EC1:A993 (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Please no list of policies

Could regular editors of this page consider rewriting the list of policies into proper prose and maybe just trim it too the most pertinent five or six. Anyone wishing to know about policies should visit the parties official website. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Katter's Australian Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Katter's Australian Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is one of many that is being wrecked by paid editors to include propaganda. Do not forget our policy is to remove propaganda of any kind. Copy and pastes of statements made by political parties, political organisations or their representatives constitutes propaganda. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

If I go to an article on a political party, one of the most obvious things I'd expect to find is what the political party supports. This is especially so for a more eccentric party like Katter's, which doesn't line up conveniently into obvious ideology. I do think it could do with a tidy up so it's not as long and forming a complete-but-dated statement of their party policies, but much of that is useful content which is totally lost when broken down into two sentences that tell you not much. This is not "paid editing" or "propaganda", and throwing slurs at editors who disagree with you on a content matter (not least being that this editor agrees with you politically) does you no credit. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Great but we don't copy announcements from political parties into Wikipedia because that is propaganda. We write about them in first voice. Why are you pretending about this? We don't write "It is the duty of government to ensure bank lending creates real wealth..." Why are you re-adding propaganda from Katter's Australian Party into Wikipedia when our policy is no propaganda of any kind? - Shiftchange (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
The article needs to include some information about what the political party supports. As I said, the content that is there clearly needs work - not least being converting it into first voice. Some of them (the example you cited being a perfect example) don't actually tell us anything about what the political party supports and can be obviously cut. But cutting everything about their actual policies is overkill - the two-line summary told us absolutely nothing useful about what they do and don't support, and getting into at least some level of policy detail is critical considering the oddball, grab-bag nature of Katter Party politics if it's to make any sense. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
The article needs to confirm with our policy of no propaganda of any kind, something you fail to address. It does include what you think belongs without the propaganda. Your strategy will fail. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
This makes no sense. Our article on a political party should explain what the political party seeks to do, even in the case of (as is bleedingly obvious from our previous interactions) a party I vehemently disagree with. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
It does in the infobox and with the section I left. We write about the policies in first voice. We don't list announcements as that is propaganda. You seem blind to propaganda. Why? - Shiftchange (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree that we should describe policies in first voice. I also agree that we shouldn't list announcements, and that this needs to get away from being one great slab of information from when they started that's now potentially dated. I don't agree that an unsourced, vague, one-line description is better than a list of things they actually support and oppose (or a prose explanation that's equally as thorough). Happy to work with you if you're willing to come to the table, but I stopped unilaterally trying to fix these kinds of disputes after our adventures with B20097. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I want to work on the article. I want to remove the propaganda. You reverted my edits and them claim to agree with me and keep reminding me of some past affinity. If someone wanted to write about the political position of a political party with sourced prose in Wikipedia voice (that is, build an encyclopedia) I would be unlikely to remove it. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
No, you want to remove all mention of what the party does and does not support beyond a vague, unsourced two-sentence summary. Describing their political position in sourced-prose - as long as it is basically as thorough as the current table - sounds great to me. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Ideology section

Hi all. I would like to remove the ideology section, as it is based on one primary source. If there are appropriate RS, then I'd still propose that those would be appropriate under Policies, as that is how a party's ideology is enacted. Are there any issues with removing it that I'm not aware of? If not, I'll remove it in a few weeks. Cheers. - - Xurizuri (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Protection request link

Special:permalink/1095999405#Katter's_Australian_Party. HTH. El_C 17:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Katter is hardly a right winger economically

Look at any of his economic policies, the guy called him self a hard leftist, and even said his policies were similar and based off 50s Labor 159.196.233.152 (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

See my comment here. Vacant0 (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Again, this is WP:OR, if you don't have sources to back up the claim that the party is left-wing, then just don't add it. Vacant0 (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Political position

I'm just going to comment that if you really want to add "economically left-wing" to the infobox, then find better sources that actually state that the "KAP is economically left-wing". 1 is a blog, 2 is an opinion article written by a member of KAP, 3 is an article about Bob Katter, and not the party. Vacant0 (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The rest of the discussion can be found here on my talk page. Vacant0 (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The sources are perfectly valid. Bob Katter is left wing economically.

The first source may be a blog, so you can disregard that, sure. The second source is written by a KAP member. What’s the problem with that? Wouldn’t they know their own party policies best? Use your brain. The third source may be about Bob himself, but the party is named after Bob, and follows his ideology. You can argue whether or whether not he truely is an agrarian socialist, but you can’t argue that he isn’t economically left. 211.30.190.120 (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Read my comment again: if you really want to add "economically left-wing" to the infobox, then find better sources that actually state that the "KAP is economically left-wing". The sources you provided do not state that. Pure original research. Vacant0 (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Why was the content sourced to Damon Alexander's piece in The Conversation removed? GeebaKhap (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
It's already in the article (see Ref 15). Vacant0 (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Updates to Katter's Australian Party 11 October 2023

Hi All,

I would like to update the 'State politics' section to include the results of the 2020 Queensland state election, and also include more recent data in the 'Donors' section. Please let me know if anyone has concern about these updates.

Thanks Willw1193 (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Katter%27s_Australian_Party/Archive_1&oldid=1194534979"