Talk:United Australia Party (2013)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Composition bars

Composition bar|1|150|hex=#FFED00 as in Infobox
Composition bar|1|150|hex=#FFDF00 as in body at Australian Federal Electoral performance table

Why do these render differently, ie a sliver of yellow is visible in the infobox bar but not in the one in body of article - different yellow, just my browser or something else?

Also, in the body performance table for Senate, should Lazarus appear as leader for 2013 or is it referring to leader of party? JennyOz (talk) 09:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Party has been renamed

Palmer has announced party is being renamed, this page should probably be moved to reflect that. Link — Preceding unsigned comment added by OzPol (talk • contribs) 01:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Your section title is inaccurate. A full reading of the article tells us there are several steps to be taken before the party can be renamed, particularly to the name he has chosen. In fact, it would probably not technically be a renaming, but the registering of a new party. And I would be surprised if that choice of name - United Australia Party - was allowed, given its previous use. HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant to say party is in the process of being renamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OzPol (talk • contribs) 02:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Even that's not really accurate. The Palmer United Party no longer legally exists, so it cannot be renamed. I suggest we await further developments before we add anything more to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if the organisation exists or not. It is not registered to take part in elections, and its registration cannot be processed between the writs for the by-elections being issued last Friday and their return which could be as late as September. I have attempted to return the article to talking about the Palmer United Party, but noted that there are noises about renaming and reviving it. There is plenty of time for the party officials to talk to the AEC officials and make sure that when they propose registration, it is with a name that would be acceptable to the AEC if there were no relevant public submissions. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Brian Burston's Parliamentary profile presently says he is Independent from 18 June, which reflects what he told the Senate this morning. We shall see whether it is updated later today or tomorrow to reflect a Palmer/United branding. NXT senator profiles changed immediately after the party name change was announced, well ahead of the AEC processing the registration change. United Australia Party has a hatnote pointing to this page. I'm not in a rush to move the page to United Australia Party (2018) or United Australia Party (Palmer) yet. I wonder if it would turn out to be cleaner to create a new page for the new party when it is registered, and keep this page for PUP (2013-2016), like we have a separate article for Pauline's United Australia Party. Burston was a candidate for that party too - perhaps this one should be Clive's United Australia party. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Update - looks like it is going to be a new organisation. ABN registrations show that Palmer United Party ABN was cancelled from 5 May 2017.[1] United Australia Party is a business name of The Mature Australia Party - MAP Pty Ltd since 5 April 2017,[2] around about the time that the AEC deregistered Mature Australia Party. Pauline's United Australia Party is still a registered business name.[3]. The Mature Australia party appears to maintain its website at https://themap.org.au/ and Palmer's new party website is at his old party's https://palmerunited.com/ . Given that my ABN search also pulled up two unrelated SA registrations, I suspect that Palmer will receive objections to registering as United Australia Party. If he attempts to register that name and receives objections, there is a real possibility that the time after the by-elections, period of public notice, time to respond to objections etc could push registration decisions out late enough that it is not registered in time for an early 2019 election. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I would very confidently expect objections to United Australia Party from the Liberal Party. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• This may sound a bit silly but shouldnt we just wait until the party is actually registered and has substantial independent sourcing before even considering an article, current all we have is media release with press conference to provide a few seconds of sound bites for the news, at the absolute outside its worth nothing more than a sentence even that could be considered giving undue weight to it. I context of all things Palmer has done, this announcement is nothing yet its just way too soon to give it an credability and definitely a long way from ever have a stand alone article. Gnangarra 08:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Completely agree. Wait. HiLo48 (talk) 08:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Also agree. It won't be registered soon because of the by-elections and may not ever be registered at all: at the moment, all there is is a plan to do it. This is not the first time there have been multiple microparties laying claim to a former major party name - let the AEC sort it out and then we reflect that. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

My research this afternoon (above) shows that if a party eventuates from these press conferences, it will not be Palmer United renamed. it will be a new entity with the same person at the top, just like he has done in other businesses, and Pauline Hanson has been head of several political parties. This article is a suitable place to collect what information needs to be collected at this stage, but it will either remain a note at the end, or eventually split to a new article if the party is ever registered, and then we will know what to call it. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the ABN is necessarily conclusive (and de-registered parties get re-registered often enough) - I think we need to take the rename/new party issue on the sources and make a judgment call when we've actually got something to work with in two or three months, after the AEC has sorted out the naming mess and once there is rather more substantial media coverage than one or two press conferences. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

We now have conflicting government sources :-( The AEC list of registered parties does not have Palmer's party under any name,[4] and cannot process a registration request for several months. On the other side, the Senate's profile of Brian Burston says he is in the United Australia Party.[5] I'm still inclined to keep it as a footnote of the PUP article until the party is formally registered, in case its name has to change again. If the federal election is called next month, I don't think Burston (or Palmer) can have United Australia Party by their names on the ballot papers. If a new registration emerges, I'd be inclined to split this article and take any content of the new party to the new article, linked by predecessor/successor fields in the infoboxes. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a good call on all counts. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not certain a split would be a good idea, and I still think we should lean on what the sources say. Can anyone think of a precedent for this? The only one I can think of is the DLP, and the split we have there is fairly controversial and never really had much consensus behind it. I guess Australia First probably counts as well, and we don't split that even though Australia First 2.0 is much more disconnected from its predecessor than this new Palmer outfit will be. Frickeg (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 25 August 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED. (non-admin closure) — bieχχ (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

---

Palmer United Party → United Australia Party (2018) – Party name has been changed to United Australia Party and has been refounded. There is dispute over whether this should be a move, or if a new article should be created (Originally requested by Fulserish). HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 02:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

See the section immediately above. The Australian Electoral Commission has not recognised the "new" party name. No point in changing the article on the whim of one person. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

What HiLo48 said. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: it is still far more famous under its previous name. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bryce bubbles:, please don't change what I wrote. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose AEC now has posted an invitations for comments on registering the United Australia Party (UAP). It would be better to start a new article for new-UAP and have links to/from Palmer United Party and old-United Australia Party (if the name is accepted). --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the NOA is for the registration of United Australia Party, not for a rename of PUP. Each registration requires 500 members who are not members of another party this would mean that its a new party application not a name change. Gnangarra 08:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I think the fundamental problem is the extent to which the Palmer United Party was anything more than just a vehicle for Clive Palmer and followers. With the other personalist vehicles they either seemed to serve no greater purpose than getting a candidate name above the line and vanished with their retirement/defeat or else the parties developed a sufficient structure and electoral record beyond the founder (and in the case of One Nation, proved able to keep going despite the founder leaving and competing with them). But here the party is so much bound up in Palmer that it seems impossible to distinguish between old & new incarnations and separate entities. Timrollpickering 15:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pauline Hanson might provide a useful template here - she founded a new party (of the same name as this!) but it wasn't the same as her other parties. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Actually I think she's a terrible comparison. One Nation developed a structure that ultimately carried on without Hanson for a decade with a clear identity with a small amount of electoral success even when she was standing as an independent or for her new party or else advertising doughnuts, though the healing of that split has contributed to the party's new rise. Whilst it may have been built up around her, One Nation wasn't just Hanson Plus. By contrast Palmer United was pretty much just "a vanity party" [6] that consisted of Palmer Plus. Timrollpickering 23:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Point taken. I should have my coffee *before* responding to these things in the morning. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Draft started

I have started an article at Draft:United Australia Party (2018) in case the party registration application gets up. It is linked from the top of the page if anyone tries to edit United Australia Party (2018) but should not be created unless the party is registered under that name in a month or so. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I think creating a new article is the best option, as we did for Pauline's United Australia Party and the other One Nation splinters. There is no apparent connection between the PUP and this new party other than Palmer's involvement. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"Right-wing" populism

The Drover's Wife insists that the UAP is a right-wing populist party. I'm not so sure. Most news articles I have read refer to the UAP and PLP as "big tent" populist parties, meaning a broad mix of policies intended to resonate with working-class voting bases. The UAP is undoubtably a populist party with unclear policy direction, but there is literally nothing right-wing about them. The Drover's Wife uses the fact that a Senator was recruited from the right-wing One Nation as evidence for this party's policies.

Key policies include increasing pensions, especially for the elderly; abolishing higher education fees; and speeding up immigration intakes. There are no policies that are anti-immigration or remotely right wing. Australian nationalist perhaps, but not right-wing. Centre-right at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.44.24.22 (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Protectionist vs. free trade classification

Noted a possible contradiction in the text - in the body text, under the Policies subsection, one of the policies of the United Australia Party is listed as "Moving towards free trade and closer economic relations with Asia." I feel this may contradict the earlier classification of the party as being Protectionist (assuming imposition of tariffs and other regulations, which has no mention in UAP's policies, constitutes being 'protectionist'). I thus would suggest removal of the word 'Protectionism' from the ideology subsection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by On2nd (talk • contribs) 04:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Queensland 2020 Election

The page requires an update for the Queensland section as the UAP did register in Queensland again and contested the recent election which is still counting votes. Pilot Eighty-Seven (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 31 August 2021

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 to United Australia Party (2013).

There is no support for keeping the current name, except perhaps implicitly Andrewa, so this article will move.

Five editors explicitly support a move to United Australia Party (2013), including Catiline52, who originally moved the article from that name. Three editors (YttriumShrew, The Drover's Wife and Boscawell) have expressed support for a move to United Australia Party (2013-), but two of them (YttriumShrew and The Drover's Wife) have subsequently accepted a consensus to move to United Australia Party (2013). Scott Davies suggested United Australia Party (2018), but that attracted no support and this editor was equally happy with United Australia Party (2013). Longhair supported United Australia Party (year), which would include United Australia Party (2013). Boscawell (and implicitly Tommyhungto, who has not participated in the RM but made an unauthorised move to that name while it was ongoing) subsequently expressed support for United Australia Party (2013-present). Redaction suggests moving to United Australia Party, but his comment suggests he intends to propose a merge, which would be out of scope of this RM. Either way, no other editor supports this suggestion.

Therefore we have 8 editors who are happy with United Australia Party (2013), with two or three editors proposing various alternatives.

Andrewa is of course right that the the discussion has not been well directed to WP:AT, but I note that the sole example he gives of the current name being used also used the name United Australia Party. While the participating editors may be Australians relying on their own experiences, the consensus is sufficiently wide that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it probably does reflect the WP:COMMONNAME.

There is general agreement that the subject is WP:NOTPRIMARY, so disambiguation is required. The proposed disambiguation does appear to be WP:CONSISTENT with at least some other similar article names per Catiline52. It also accords with WP:NCPP: "If two parties in the same country have identical names then they could be differentiated by year of establishment."

Accordingly, I find a consensus to move this article to United Australia Party (2013).

In the course of the discussion, it was also suggested that United Australia Party should move to United Australia Party (1931). Per WP:RMCI this won't happen, as it would contravene the rule only move involved pages. In any case, I find no consensus on this point. If editors wish to make this move, an RM must be proposed at United Australia Party.

I find consensus to create a DAB page, but this is out of scope of this RM. Any editor who wishes can just create it. Necessarily it would be at United Australia Party (disambiguation) pending any RM of United Australia Party. (non-admin closure) Havelock Jones (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Clive Palmer's United Australia Party → ? – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. (By the way, I didn't start this discussion, I just added the requested move template). YttriumShrew (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the name of the article. Under the AEC register of parties, there is no such party as the Clive Palmer's United Australia Party. See: https://www.aec.gov.au/parties_and_representatives/party_registration/Registered_parties/. The opening sentence of the article also makes it clear that the article is about the United Australia Party. I wonder, therefore, whether it might be more accurate simply to blank this article, and put a redirect to the United Australia Party article. With the UAP article, one could add a paragraph explaining that the party has been revived by Clive Palmer, although there is no necessary connection (apart from name) with the previous UAP. Redaction101 (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The United Australia Party has a "this article is about" link at the top. I'd favour moving this article to "United Australia Party (2013–)" and possibly moving the other article to "United Australia Party (1931–1945)". The 1931–1945 party is probably more notable, but whether it needs a disambiguation is probably up for debate. YttriumShrew (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The original UAP is in no way connected to Clive Palmer’s UAP, despite the name and His obnoxious claims.

If this is to be moved, "United Australia Party (2013-)", not moving the other article, and not turning United Australia Party into a disambiguation page. This microparty is emphatically less notable than the major party that governed Australia for nine years, including part of World War II, no probably about it. As for the original suggestion, the argument that Palmer has "revived" the UAP in any context does not seem to be accepted by anyone outside Clive Palmer that I've seen. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

+1 to moving party to "United Australia Party (2013)". There is no direct lineage between the UAP and Clive's party, like the Democratic Labour Party and the Australian Democrats are to their now-micro parties. It'd be inappropriate to merge the pages, as those parties have done, as there is no real connection between them. The original UAP page should remain the primary page, as a party that has formed Commonwealth government is significantly more notable. Catiline52 (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

+1 for renaming to ‘’’United Australia Party (2013)’’’ or similar. It’s now not associated with Mr Palmer and so it seems odd to have the name be the current way it is. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Not sure where you got that idea? It is still very much associated with Palmer. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Such as he no longer leads it and the party no longer goes by that name This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

He's still the dominant figure in the party. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Plus one more for whatever YttriumShrew is happy with. Sorry, but I have no time for the opinion here of anyone posting words like “his obnoxious views”. Boscaswell talk 01:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

That wasn't my comment, that was an unsigned anon comment above mine, so please save the sass for the person who actually wrote it, rather than advocating moving one of the major parties of Australian history because you got mad at someone who expressed no opinions on the subject. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Boscaswell, you seem to mean this edit and if so perhaps you should apologise. But everyone makes mistakes. Andrewa (talk) 08:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be broad support for "United Australia Party (2013)". That's currently a redirect to this page, so we'd need it to be deleted before we move the page. I think we should leave the option of moving the original UAP open in case this party becomes more notable, but status quo seems sufficient for the other article. YttriumShrew (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife Your comment was placed immediately below the unsigned one, with the same inset. Zero indication of any separation.Boscaswell talk 02:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

So, your entire position on this argument amounts from lashing out at me because you got confused with an IP who posted in a weird place after I commented, and you're declining to retract it. Gotcha. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife, Boscaswell just didn't understand how to read the talk page, and that is obvious from the page and its history and will remain so. So I suggest we all move on. Andrewa (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Do we have any opposition to ‘’’United Australia Party (2013)’’’? This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support move to United Australia Party (year). The year 2013 appears to be a valid choice given the history described in the article. 2018 is named in paragraph 32 of the Statement of Reasons . I'm OK with either. I explicitly reject any proposal to merge it with United Australia Party and see no reason to rename that article at this time. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• As a first option, I'd lean towards simply having a move to United Australia Party, with the section within that article making it clear that the current micro-party is a resurrected entity. As a precedent, the current micro-party the Australian Democrats has only a tenuous connection with the previous parliamentary political party, despite the claims to the contrary on its website, and yet there is only one article entitled Australian Democrats. However, as a second option, I'd be agreeable to supporting the United Australian Party (Year) idea. Redaction101 (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • The problem with this is that the claim that it is a "resurrected entity" is vastly more disputed than it is supported, so this approach would have fundamental NPOV issues. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• I very strongly Oppose a move to United Australia Party (2013) Boscaswell talk 02:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC) NB that was opposition that I subsequently retracted Boscaswell talk 04:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedians are not a higher authority than the Australian Electoral Commission. We may think we are, but, well, that’s tough. We take it on the chin. The AEC registered the party under the name United Australia Party (something I had not fully understood a few days ago.) We can not over-ride that. Boscaswell talk 02:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • As in every other case where we have multiple articles of the same name, we need to disambiguate them. You do realise that this is the situation we're discussing, yes? When we title the article at "United Australia Party (2013)", we're not saying that's the name of the party, it's the name of our article because we need to disambiguate it from the other party of that name. Just like our article on Michael McCormack being at Michael McCormack (Australian politician) doesn't mean that we think his name is "Michael McCormack Australian Politician". I'm not sure where you're even coming from here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Where Wikipedia article titles are concerned we are indeed a higher authority than the Australian Electoral Commission, we have our article naming policy and under it the Australian Electoral Commission is not terribly relevant. The AEC is heavily reliant on what the party chooses to call themselves, which makes them a primary source. And we prefer secondary sources. Andrewa (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Support - move to United Australia Party (year). The original party is the more prominent party here. -- Longhair\^talk 08:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support United Australia Party (2013). No question that this is the only suitable option at this point. Even if there was a lot more to support a connection between this and the previous, vastly more significant party than there is, a gap of over 75 years would still justify two separate articles. Frickeg (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

As I’m one of only two who prefer that there be no year appended to the article title, I’ll “fall on my sword.” Point taken, Drivers Wife. However, I believe that if the article is titled United Australia Party (2013) there is a not particularly subtle implication that it is of that year and that year only. That makes United Australia Party (2013-) preferable, since there is an acknowledgment that the party is continuing. Therefore my Support is for United Australia Party (2013-) Boscaswell talk 02:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I was hoping for a continuation of the debate. Does anyone disagree with the point I made at 02:32, 6 September? Boscaswell talk 00:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The usual naming scheme for these parties, when it is not based on the country it is based in (e.g. Australia), is based on the year of foundation (Progressive Party (1920), Progressive Party (1901), Communist Party of Australia (1971), Australian Women's Party (1995)). Just "(2013)" is a simpler title, and keeping the page naming scheme consistent would likely cause less confusion for readers. Catiline52 (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we disagree. The year refers to the date of founding, and is used in all the other equivalent cases needing disambiguation as well. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest relisting as very little of the above seems terribly relevant in terms of WP:AT; It instead reflects POVs that most Australians probably share and appeals to primary sources such as the Electoral Commission. The current title is quite common in secondary sources, such as here, and it seems consistent with that of our article on Pauline's United Australia Party, a similar organisation in many ways. The date of founding of Clive Palmer's party could be said to be 2013 or 2018. I'm not going to relist this myself as I wish to be involved (as I now am) in the discussion. Andrewa (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • There would need to be a compelling reason to not use the official name of a party, and there hasn't really been any arguments put forward for why we would do that. It is unclear whether the reference in the linked article is referring to "Clive Palmer's United Australia Party" as the name of the party, or referring to it as being Clive Palmer's and using the official name, in the same way that some stories referred to "Nick Xenophon's Centre Alliance" despite that never being the party's name. Pauline's United Australia Party is not a relevant comparison as it was the actual name of the party throughout its lifespan. I don't really see an argument for considering Palmer's party to have been founded in 2018, nor sources to back up that interpretation. We have five or six users who are fine with "United Australia Party (2013)" as a general compromise option, two who want to promote this over the historical major party (both of which have now indicated that they'd accept some form of the year disambiguation as a compromise), and only one person who supports using the party's old name, neither of the latter two having advanced any arguments that have changed anyone else's minds so far (or looking likely to do in the future). The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Disagree that There would need to be a compelling reason to not use the official name of a party.... Have a look at wp:official names. It's not policy, but it is supposed to explain policy. What do you think the policy says? Andrewa (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Assessing the consensus (or lack of it) is for the closer, not the participants. Have a look at wp:NHC for how they will do this. Andrewa (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
      • You haven't convinced anyone of your perspective, at this point, so it's a bit moot. You can't have a consensus of one in a discussion with actual turnout. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
        • That is entirely up to the closer to assess. (And I do not envy them, this is a mess.) Andrewa (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Whichever way this goes, I think a page at United Australia Party (disambiguation) with hatnotes to it from various the various articles would be helpful. I'm a bit surprised to see it as a redlink. Comments? Andrewa (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Not a bad idea at this point. I'd forgotten about PUAP entirely, which starts to take it out of the realm of hatnote territory. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
    • There is also the United Australia Party – Queensland (1931-1941) and the United Australia Party (South Australia) (1997), and we should IMO have a See also for the Unite Australia Party (1987-1990). (Those names are really quite logical, in that they observe the basic rules of politics; Similarly, whenever you see a country that incorporates the word Democratic into its official name you can be fairly sure it is a dictatorship.)
    • We might also see about making those other disambiguations a bit more consistent. Andrewa (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
      • The linked Queensland article is the state branch of the federal major party. (The SA article is a separate one, at least.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
        • That is irrelevant. The point is that the article does exist. So for the moment, until and unless a merge or deletion takes place, we need to list it on any DAB.
        • And also somehow disambiguate. It would be good to do it more consistently IMO. Andrewa (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support the existence of a disambiguation page. YttriumShrew (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
    • At which title? The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
      • United Australia Party (diambiguation)? IMO United Australia Party should redirect to the article about the current party, since people tend to prioritise finding out about current parties over those which were put to bed decades ago. And then the article about the current party would be prefaced by notes and links for to the historic party and the disambiguation page. Boscaswell talk 04:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
        • I thought along similar lines in my original comment, but I personally would prefer that there is a disambiguation at United Australia Party and the United Australia Party article moved to United Australia Party (1931). YttriumShrew (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
          • What reason is there to declare that a minor party which elected zero MPs at the last election is of more notability than the major party that governed Australia through half of the Great Depression and half of World War II, and had two of the most notable conservative Prime Ministers in Australian history? There is an absolute wealth of sources referring to the notability of the historical major party, and there's...a few news articles on this one. I don't see any reasonable argument for that move apart from pure recentism (or promotion). The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
            • I'm not attempting to promote the newer party, I merely thought that people would be more likely to be wanting to find out about this one than previous ones. If this is irrelevant I'm happy to support the disambig being at United Australia Party (disambiguation) and the 1931 UAP article remaining unchanged. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
              • One party is of major historical significance but does not currently exist, the other is a current but minor and unrelated party, and there are other articles that could also go by this name. It seems to me unlikely that there is a primary topic for United Australia Party, and that from a practical point of view the destination of that base name should be a DAB to minimise mislinkings. Andrewa (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
                • I agree, Andrewa. Boscaswell talk 05:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
                • Andrewa, I think the original "United Australia Party" beats the new one under WP:PTOPIC criteria, and hence should be the primary article. PTOPIC proposes two main criteria (1) usage (2) long-term significance. I think it is clear that the original one wins hands-down on (2), the only question is who wins on (1). But for usage I would point out that includes "Usage in English reliable sources", and clearly the original party is far more commonly discussed in English reliable sources than the new one. The original party forms a major part of Australia's political history and so many published works on Australian history discuss it in great detail; the new party is a minor party which has received quite limited coverage from reliable sources – some coverage in the news media, but that coverage is comparatively limited; when we consider the highest quality reliable sources, which provide the most extensive coverage, such as books and peer-reviewed journals, the original UAP's lead in usage will be very impressive. Try doing a JSTOR search for "united australia party" – something like 99% of the results are for the historic party not the current one. Mr248 (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
                  • Agree about PT critierion (2) and I think that makes it quite clear that of there is a PT at all, it is the historical party not any more recent one using the name. But we do not have any concept of which reliable sources are highest quality overall, just which are better for verifying specific things. The JSTOR results are not surprising. But these will tend to be older sources, and the principle of WP:NAMECHANGES is applicable IMO. We want to base our article names on current common usage. Note also that neither criterion is a two-horse race. To be PT, one topic must be compared to all other uses, taken together. Even if it were the case that clearly the original party is far more commonly discussed in English reliable sources than the new one (and I do not think that is clear at all), that is not the issue. So I still tend to the view that there is no PT currently. Andrewa (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
                    • I had a look at the view statistics (see link), and this article is currently seeing more viewership than the historical UAP, although this will likely not last. I think the concurrent increase for the United Australia Party is probably due to people mistakenly finding it while looking for the CPUAP article. YttriumShrew (talk) 07:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
                      • And it may be a good guess, or not, but note wp:ball. That's part of the problem with page views. But meantime, we're not justified IMO in deciding a PT, even without considering the mislinking problem. If we must, I agree it would be the historical party. (But that's not because we don't like the later ones. Such POVs are irrelevant.) Andrewa (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• @YttriumShrew: If United Australia Party is moved to United Australia Party (1931), I think there is a significant likelihood that at some future date it will just be moved back to United Australia Party–that seems to me to be a good argument for holding off moving it for now.

  Nobody knows what the future holds for the current UAP. Maybe in a few more years, they will be as big as the Australian Greens, even bigger–a true "major minor" party. Maybe in a few more years, they will be disbanded. I think an impartial observer would have to say the second is more likely than the first, but either could happen. But, to me, that could be a good argument for leaving the historical United Australia Party where it is right now. If in a few more years the current UAP has become much more politically significant, the case that for moving the historical United Australia Party to United Australia Party (1931) will have become much stronger, even irresistible. Conversely, if (as seems more likely) they go nowhere, maybe we'll all be glad that we didn't move United Australia Party to United Australia Party (1931), because then nobody will have to put in the work of moving it back. Mr248 (talk) 10:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Fair. I think we can probably make a determination after the 2022 election (preferably on the United Australia Party talk). YttriumShrew (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, that's part of the problem with page views. They show what people are finding, but that may not be what they are looking for. Andrewa (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support moving this article but Oppose moving United Australia Party. As I argue above, the historical UAP is clearly the PTOPIC. Whereas for this article, I agree the current name is outdated and something like United Australia Party (2013) would be appropriate. I also support existence of a United Australia Party (disambiguation) page, but as a "(disambiguation)" page, not taking over the 1931 party's place as the main article. Mr248 (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Arguments over whether the old or the currently-registered UAP articles is the one which will be accessed most often in the future are of course crystal ball gazing, although it should be born in mind that as there is an election looming and the currently-registered one is likely to be running many candidates, whereas the old one most likely won’t be fielding any at all………
  • Anyway, that particular argument is of no consequence if one of them is titled UAP (1931-19xx) and the other UAP (2013). Let’s declare no winner to that argument and get this article renamed. UAP to the disambiguation page and…we’re done? Boscaswell talk 11:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I think there is definitely consensus to move this page (the page whose talk page we are on). I don't agree that there is consensus to move the existing United Australia Party page. Ultimately the requested move closer whoever it is (not any of us since we've been actively involved in the discussion) will make a judgement call on what consensus has been established. Mr248 (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

There’s been a suggestion that no decision should be made on whether to take the mantle of UAP from the historic party until after the 2022 election had been place. Someone supporting the new UAP or someone wishing for there to be a decent level of fairness given to all could very easily argue that that suggestion comes from the wrong place. I am not saying that that is the case. But do we not need to act in a manner which reflects official actions? The Australian Electoral Commission has registered the party with the name United Australia Party and registered the abbreviation UAP for that party. Notwithstanding the historic importance of the old party, the new one carries the name. Boscaswell talk 02:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no argument in policy for recentism overriding WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in disambiguation and in practice a clear majority here opposing recentism trumping WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in this specific case. Even from a recentism perspective, I think it's highly arguable that many people know this party as "United Australia Party" at all and would look at that specific title in the first instance, instead of googling something like "Clive Palmer's party". It's certainly almost never reported without mention of Palmer in the same sentence. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that comment, I think it raises an important issue that is discussed above but obviously not well enough. No, we do not need to act in a manner which reflects official actions. These official actions are primary sources, and of some very restricted interest only. We go by reliable secondary sources. That is a strong, consistent, wide-ranging and long-standing policy, often misunderstood and often challenged but never successfully so far. Andrewa (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Some comments regarding discussion

It's too late to avoid this being a mess and a nightmare for the closer, but please can we not make it even worse?

The closer is interested in the arguments. Replies to arguments are included.

The closer is not interested in involved parties claiming consensus. They are of course interested in alternative proposals that this apparent consensus may suggest, but these alternative proposals should be clearly put, as alternative proposals, and people can then comment on them and express their support or opposition and reasons. There is no need to claim consensus in advance.

I hope that helps. Please consider it. Andrewa (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a clear majority opposing any move of the historical United Australia Party away from that title and only one user supporting keeping this at the present title. These posts attempting to appeal to the closer in a way that would mean ignoring literally everyone else who responded but you are a bit off. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I am making no such appeal and no competent closer would be influenced by it. I am appealing to you and to others not to attempt to influence myself and others by assessing consensus yourself. This will not influence the closer either. But it clutters the page with irrelevant posts and makes their job harder, to no benefit to anyone. The appeal has fallen on deaf ears, evidently. Have you read either wp:closing or wp:consensus? Andrewa (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Then these repeated posts are just completely pointless and a repeated unhelpful digression from the discussion. Noting the feedback so far is part of forming consensus and working towards possible solutions. That there is a majority of respondents opposing any move of the United Australia Party article from that page and no one has supported that the perspective you have advanced are clear statements of fact, and continually protesting mentioning it either suggests that you're hoping the closer won't notice it (unlikely) or will ignore all the other respondents (also unlikely). This is not helpful in working towards consensus in any sense. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

This section is not about working towards consensus on the RM proposal but simply a suggestion to make it easier for the closer to assess. But I agree it doesn't seem to have helped.

I agree that Noting the feedback so far is part of forming consensus and working towards possible solutions. But that process should be in the form of support of the arguments, or of providing counter arguments. It's not a head count. Did you read wp:closing and wp:consensus?

Your speculation that I might be hoping the closer won't notice it or that they will ignore all the other respondents seems to me to be baseless, and insulting both to myself and to possible closers. I'm very sorry it has come to this.

So perhaps we should now think of hatting this section. Andrewa (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

You cannot have a "consensus" of an overwhelming minority viewpoint to ignore the overwhelming majority viewpoint (of established editors making reasonable arguments). There is literally no interpretation of either consensus (the English-language word) or consensus (the Wikipedia policy) that permits that. You're welcome to continue making arguments that might, possibly, persuade other users in the discussion of your viewpoint, but these posts are flatly trying to pitch to the closer ("a suggestion to make it easier for the closer to assess" in the context of a discussion in which your arguments have met with no support) and it is gross. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The key here is your qualifier of established editors making reasonable arguments. At Wikipedia, a reasonable argument is considered to be one that conforms well to existing policy and guidelines. Indeed, !votes that don't do this are simply discarded. Did you notice that in the links to the two key pages wp:closing and wp:consensus to which I linked at least twice before?

The logic behind this is, Wikipedia policies and guidelines represent a great deal of work by a great many people to reach consensus over a long period of time. So one !vote that accurately reflects this consensus is taken to better reflect consensus overall than any number which, for whatever reason, ignore it.

This approach is not unique to Wikipedia. The other place in which I regularly participate in consensus decision-making is within the Uniting Church in Australia. The procedures in our Manual for Meetings are not at all the same as Wikipedia's, but the goals and outcomes are remarkably similar.

But they are all in some ways counter-intuitive. They take some skill and homework to apply successfully, which is one reason that having involved people attempt to pre-empt the closer is counterproductive, and discouraged. And I'm sorry you find my attempts to point this out gross. Andrewa (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

This is all pointless. Any move of United Australia Party is outside the scope of this discussion, which is about the appropriate title for this page. The consensus on that seems pretty clear. Frickeg (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree that this is just about what to call the article currently at Clive Palmer's United Australia Party. But there seem to be various opinions as to what to move it to, and I'm still of the opinion that no case in terms of policy has been put for a move at all. There is a huge backlog at WP:RMB, including this discussion. You could try Wikipedia:Closure requests if you like. See Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 32, the most recent archive, for how this is done, and some recent successful requests. Search for Requested within that page, there are 49 occurrences representing about 16 closed RMs. Andrewa (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Andrewa the UAP is a minority party. As such, where there is drift away from the two main parties towards it, albeit not particularly large, it is subject to all sorts of vilification. Now there are those who consider its policies and its leader to be spouting rubbish. That’s evident from the comments of at least one frequent contributor to this discussion. But Wikipedia is not a side-taker. The leader of the party is not Clive Palmer. Are you suggesting that Wikipedia takes the view, despite both that fact and the fact of its registered name, that the article title should remain "Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party"? It strikes me that if that were to be the outcome of this discussion, many might well be ashamed by what they see as an apparent inability of Wikipedia to be fair-minded. All the best. Boscaswell talk 03:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Quite right that Wikipedia does not take sides. And that is exactly why most of the rest of that post is irrelevant. As is much of the discussion so far.

We have our article naming policy. And we choose our article names by it. We do not change them because a party is minor, nor because we do or don't like its leadership, nor because of any other political view or poll, nor because of what primary sources including the AEC or the party itself call it.

And we certainly don't change article names just because we think that it will make us more popular to do so.

I would personally like the article moved. But I can't !vote for that unless we have evidence from reliable secondary sources, and neither should you. Andrewa (talk) 05:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe that the choice of new name in the unauthorised name change made a week or so ago has its merits. United Australia Party (2013-present) - a brilliant solution! Interestingly, it sat there for several days, with no-one here hitting undo. The proposed article title United Australia Party (2013) has a subtle inference that it lasted for one year only, hasn’t it? Yet the party is ongoing. I believe that Wikipedia exists to express notable information in as clear and fair a way as possible.Boscaswell talk 03:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

As previously stated above, the consensus is to use the date of the party's founding. Besides, this UAP didn't exist for some of that time, so to be totally accurate, one would have to change the name to United Australia Party (2013–2017, 2018–present), which is correct but clunky and over-detailed. Indeed, this is why the consensus is to use the founding date, so it isn't necessary to change article titles when parties are disestablished or refounded. (By the way, the move was up for 16 hours, and I notified the mover it had been reverted shortly after it was. They haven't joined the discussion). YttriumShrew (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2021 (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.

Fake members

This article from the ABC, an obviously reliable source, describes a number of people who were "signed up" as members of the United Australia Party without their knowledge. The people include Liberal senator Eric Abetz. Membership of the UAP is free. That 80,000 membership number has to be doubtful. We need to address this somehow in the article. Simply stating a number in the Infobox is obviously misleading. I would remove that number from the Infobox, and add a small paragraph explaining the situation. HiLo48 (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• I updated the info box noted the membership is disputed add a source, also added the predecessor information and fixed the foudnation to August 2021 when the AEC officially recognised the current UAP. Gnangarra 14:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess that works. I have big, overriding concerns about a lot of parties' claims re membership numbers. This one tops a long list. HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Predecessor parties

I altered the infobox to follow the previously accepted talk page discussion(then reverted) that the other iterations had all been deregistered prior to the AEC officially recognising UAP in its current form in August 2021 this was not a rename.

The current info box is incorrect in stating 'Founded April 2013; 9 years ago (as Palmer United Party). The article sits at the wrong title and should be moved to United Australia Party (2021), with details of Palmers previous iterations just a part of its history. unless they warrant individual articles. Gnangarra 11:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Massive Advertising

Unless you live under a rock, it's difficult to watch TV or YouTube in Australia and not get frequently bombarded by his campaign ads. The guy spent so much in advertising and yet still failed to win a seat. Should we mention that he launched a massive ad campaign telling public to stop lockdowns, and has spent (nearly $3.5 million on advertising in April, more than seven times the amount of its closest rival). And that he is spending so much on ad campaigning that he outpaces both liberal and labor ad spending. I feel that it's noteworthy to mention his advertising budget considering it's massive and disportionate compared to other political parties, and he is often criticized for it.

https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/clive-palmer-drowns-out-labor-and-liberals-with-advertising-spending-20220412-p5acta 49.195.19.232 (talk) 04:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that something should be added to the article, but that source is hidden behind a Rupert Murdoch paywall, and he's not getting any of my money. Got a better, more public source? HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yep, there are other good sources without the nasty paywall. "The Guardian reports the UAP spent almost a total of $100 million on advertising, including literally up to a 600k worth epic (hour-long) advertisement on Channel 10, in the lead up to the election."

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/20/uap-may-have-more-backing-than-polls-suggest-with-voters-too-embarrassed-to-voice-support-analysis-shows

The Guardian also writes that Clive paid tens of millions of dollars in the final leg to the election, campaigning on issues of freedom and opposing Covid vaccine mandates and lockdowns. And not just the amount of money spent. It's also very noteworthy on what messages his expensive ads are promoting. IE, He made odd accusations against the major parties in that he claimed them of wanting to give up control of Australia’s health department to the “Chinese-controlled WHO”, in double-page newspaper advertisements across the country, plus urging voters to put the Liberal and Labor party last, Etc

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/22/clive-palmers-massive-advertising-spend-fails-to-translate-into-electoral-success 49.195.19.232 (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Um, bump! Am the same fellow as 49.195.19.232. I would add this in myself except editing is blocked for this article. Can you please add the above information in or explain why it shouldn't be added. Thanks!.49.186.27.198 (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Odd deregistration situation

It seems that we've got another of these very rare situations (see here) where a party ceases to have party representation but has a current MP who continues to represent the party. It's absurd to suggest that it no longer exists when its sitting Senator insists that it does and that he's going to continue to represent it in parliament. This one will hopefully get resolved in a few days when the media attention gets to the bottom of what happened with the deregistration (voluntary in this case), but the use of past tense, etc is taking a position not supported by the sources at this stage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. As an opening offer for improvement I have changed "former" to "currently deregistered" ("currently unregistered" would also be accurate) pending any decision the Senate might make on the matter when it next sits, or any subsequent fallout that might potentially result in Babet leaving the party (of which there is no evidence at present). A number of edits across several related articles were made by users who understandably but incorrectly assumed that a party's status from the perspective of the Senate is necessarily the same as its status from the perspective of AEC registration to contest elections. Therealsleepycat (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)