Talk:Australian Citizens Party

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

Political Position[edit]

The Platform of this Party seems more Left-Wing Rather than Right-Wing, Perhaps it would be more accurate to label it Socially Right-Wing, Economically Left-Wing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiner226 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation, arbitration,
requests for clarification, and
other discussions about the
LaRouche movement, 2004-2008
Long term abuse subpage, LaRouche accounts
ArbCom clarification/enforcement,
AN/I, 2005-8
Arbitration 2006
Arbitration 2005
Arbitration 2004
Mediation 2006 and 2007
Mediation 2004
Article talk 2004-2007
Template talk
Categories
This box:

old comments[edit]

Edit wars have been largely terminated on the other LaRouche pages, thanks to the mediation of Snowspinner. Please edit this page responsibly. --Herschelkrustofsky 13:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To say that the Privy Council is a "purely ceremonial body" is specious, given that it was the agency responsible for sacking Gough Whitlam. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:17, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Herschel you are wrong. The Governor General of Australia sacked Whitlam, the Privy Council had no role in it. Personally, I think it's a monarchist hangover that should be abolished but it IS a purely ceremonial body and Australia ceased making appointments to it several years ago (see the article Right Honourable) and unlike Canada there is no Australian Privy Council. AndyL 23:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

More specifically, Australia stopped making appointments to the British Privy Council in 1983 and there is no domestic Australian Privy Council. It is absolutely correct to say there is no constitutional link between the "Privy Council" and Australia. AndyL 23:23, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My mistake; it was the Governor-General, which still strikes me as a shocking colonial intervention by the Brits. Beyond that, it is my understanding that in the British system, a lot of the ways in which political power is exercised might be considered "informal", in line with having an "unwritten constitution." --Herschelkrustofsky 12:58, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that the Privy Council does not exist in Australia and the claims of the CEC regarding it are patently absurd. AndyL 20:59, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Privy Council "does not exist" in Australia? --Herschelkrustofsky 22:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No. While there is a Queen's Privy Council for Canada there is no such body in Australia. As I said earlier Australian appointments to the British (or Imperial) Privy Council ceased in 1983 when Labor PM Bob Hawke refused to be appointed to the body. The British Privy Council only meets on ceremonial occasions. It's met twice in the past 50 some years, once on the succession of Elizabeth II to the throne and once to give its approval to the marriage of Prince Charles and Diana. I know this doesn't accord with the great role Lyndon LaRouche's conspiracy theory gives the body - perhaps this means you should reconsider the veracity of LaRouche's theory. AndyL 01:49, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It used to be the practice to appoint Australian Prime Ministers, Chief Justices and Governors General to the Privy Council so that they could use the title "Right Honourable". There are six Australians alive who are Privy Council members, the youngest is 74 so within about ten years, chances are, there will be no one left. They are all retired from their positions. That they are members of the Privy Council gives them no more power than, say, someone who has an Order of the British Empire. It's nothing more than a ceremonial title. AndyL 02:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since we seem to be discussing this so amicably, I'll try to summarize LaRouche's views on this (based on some reading that I did years ago, so I may not have every jot and tittle right): under the British system (which they didn't invent -- they inherited it from the Venetians, but the British put it into practice on a rather grand scale)), the official, formal channels of power are not all that important. Think of the popular depiction of the power structure of the Sicilian mafia: the local don is not elected, he has no formal power at all, but in reality, he rules the roost, due to commercial power and other sorts of, shall we say, informal capabilities, which in most cases are transmitted to a successor by primogeniture. In the U.S., it is generally taught that the Queen is strictly a quaint figurehead who plays no political role at all -- which is naive, since the prerogative powers, under which the Governor General sacked Whitlam, emanate from the Crown (the closest I ever got to the British system was a visit to Ottawa, during which I was duly impressed by the fact that the Governor General's mansion is far more impressive than the P.M.'s.) However, the most substantial power of the monarchy -- meaning not just the queen as an individual, but rather her extended family -- is commercial. LaRouche has referred to the British monarchy as the world's largest multinational corporation.

Far the most part, none of these relations are proclaimed to the public, they are just "understood," which is why some people might find it highly desirable to be associated with the monarchy, even through what may be, on paper, an impotent association such as you describe the Australian Privy Council to be. I didn't know it only had six members -- according to the CEC, three of them are on board of the ADC, which suggests to me that the two organizations may have more than a little in common.

If you would like to explore an American's insight into these kinds of relations, I highly recommend a novel written a few hundred years ago by James Fennimore Cooper, entitled The Bravo. It describes not the British system per se, but rather the model upon which it is based, the "serene republic" of Venice. --Herschelkrustofsky 10:35, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The "CEC-linked Website" mentions that former Governors-General Zelman Cowan and Ninian Stephen are on the ADC board. Weed Harper 15:04, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All this shows how little Americans understand the British system, particularly those who are blinded by Anglophobia (a problem not confined to LaRouche, but obviously taken by him to extremes). The fact is that the Queen is "a quaint figurehead who plays no political role at all," although she certainly has some informal political influence in British politics due to her vast personal experience, an influence which she uses mainly to urge caution and moderation.

It is true that the British constitutional system involves a facade which conceals a reality. However LaRouch has the relationship around the wrong way. It is the monarchy, with its apparently unlimited constuitutional power, which is the facade, and parliamentary government, with executive power residing with the Cabinet, which is the reality. This has been the case in Britain since at least the late 19th century and probably since the Glorious Revolution of 1688, although it took a long time for the change to be accepted by all participants.

In Australia the Queen has no influence whatever, and plays no constitutional or political role whatever. It is true that in theory the Governor-General represents "the Crown" (which is a legal entity separate from the Queen's person), but in practice he is an independent ceremonial head of state. Kerr's dismissal of Whitlam was a drama played out entirely in the context of Australian domestic politics, and the Queen knew nothing about it until after the event. Even if she had, she could and would have done nothing about it. She has no independent power to dismiss the Governor-General or tell him what to do or not do.

On the Privy Council. Let me repeat there is no such thing as a Privy Council in Australia. There are six elderly members of the British Privy Council, appointed more than 20 years ago for purely ceremonial reasons, who never meet and who play no role whatever in Australian politics, although Malcolm Fraser still makes political comments now and again.

Cowen and Stephen are both in their 80s and their roles on the ADC board are honorary. The ADC doesn't need advice from Cowen and Stephen to keep a close watch on LaRouche's Australian operations. They do it because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that you are an anti-Semitic organisation. If you want to prove that you are not, you can start by repudiating LaRouche's Holocaust denial of the 1970s, and stop circulating absurd conspiracy theories about "Zionists." 01:10, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Adam 01:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pretending that a woman with as much ancestral wealth and status as the queen is "a quaint figurehead who plays no political role at all," is, no offence intended, completely sexist and naive. Who would call a man with that kind of wealth and influence quaint? The discretionary power personal wealth and status gives a person also has far less oversight than executive power. Look at Prince Philip's voracious appetite for hunting yet him still having been a figurehead of the WWF. Would a politician get away with that blatant lack of integrity and hypocrisy? They would be shot down in flames in a moment.

Discretionary power is also known to create vested interest groups and hence corruption, a subject very important to any discussion of politics. It appears to me that many editors here wish to discredit the Citizen's party more than share information and allow readers to make up their own minds. I have no horse in this race but would like to read more intelligent information about the parties views than what I found on this page. With the good work, the party have been doing bringing corruption to light in Australia recently and having toned down their strident tone quite a bit since their change of name it would be good to see more NPOV additions to this page. Nincaro (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for the sacking of Whitlam that was done by the Governor General. The Queen was not advised or consulted (and personally, I think it should not have happened and I suspect Adam things the same). She was not even informed until after it had happened. Personally, I think, Australia and Canada (and Britain for that matter) should become republics but not for any of the reasons put forward by LaRouchians.

As far as conspiracy theories are concerned the links between Govenor General Kerr and the CIA and Whitlam's decision to close an American communications base in Australia and other examples of "anti-American" actions by the Labor government are far more compelling explanations (see the film The Falcon and the Snowman) than the bizarre and frankly ignorant conspiracy theory regarding the privy council put forward by LaRouchians.AndyL 02:57, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Synarchy[edit]

Herschell removed a statement that LaRouche: "believes that the world is ruled by a secret cabal of financiers based in London, the "Synarchy"".

and a second statement that LaRouche believes the Queen is the head of the synarchy.

Are you saying that LaRouche does not believe that the world is ruled by "the synarchy" or are you just embarassed by this belief?AndyL 23:33, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I consider the language to be unacceptably POV in the following ways: first, LaRouche does not believe that Synarchism is a "secret cabal." LaRouche attacks them for beliefs and policies they openly espouse. Nor does LaRouche believe that they "rule the world." He believes that as a faction within the financial community they possess enough power to do considerable mischief, and does hold them responsible for promoting fascist governments throughout Europe during the 1930s. Nor does he believe that the Queen is the "head of the synarchy" -- he has said that her "extended family," operating through companies like Rio Tinto Zinc, is a very significant and generally pernicious commercial and political force in the world, but as an individual she is largely just a leech on the poor Brits. If you want to say that he believes these things, I won't object -- the propagandistic quality which I object to, is to exaggerate LaRouche's claims in hopes of making him appear silly. --Herschelkrustofsky 02:02, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

He is perfectly capable of making himself look silly without any help from us. Adam 13:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good. Then you will have no further need to put words in his mouth. --Herschelkrustofsky 16:39, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Undisputed[edit]

I am satisfied that the present version of the page is in compliance with Wikipedia NPOV policy and I am prepared to removed the "disputed" tag, if no one objects. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:43, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chuck F and Reithy[edit]

It appears that we have an edit war that is more a conflict between two individuals than a reasonable dispute over the article. The section added by 198.81.26.76, on the historical Australian figures that the CEC supports, is consistant with Wikipedia NPOV policy. It is rebutted in the following paragraph, which represents the opinion of CEC opponents. Therefore, the article is balanced, and the new paragraph is useful information. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unsourced material[edit]

Cultural Basis[edit]

The Citizens Electoral Council also has a continuing tradition of holding "Cultural Nights" in which they perform classical music, recite poetry and convey the immortality of Human Creation (Cognition) in the form of speeches.

Like the recent event they held in Coburg to commemorate the Immortality of Prime Minister John Curtin , on the 60th anniversary of his death. Expressing how an Australian could make such a change to the nation (through his break with Britain Midwar, that didn't result in more division within Australia and his personal battles with Alcoholism and depression, that didn't hinder his leadership in the time of need) by offering music of the CEC choir and orchestra and solo performances from its members.

For the Citizens Electoral Council publications (eg. Australian Alert Service) generally write to the effect, "if we do not change the culture of Australia, all of these political changes we incite or perform will not last a day". What is very much an idea borrowed from sister LaRouche Orginisations like the Schiller Institute.

I can't find a mention of this on the CEC website. Does anyone have a source? Thanks, -Willmcw 18:36, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

The source is obviously an Australian LaRouchist editor who attends these bizarre rituals, and who has my deepest sympathy in his/her affliction. The facts as presented are probably true in outline, but they are not very relevant to the article, and are so encrusted in POV language as to be beyond rescue. They should be deleted. Adam 11:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check [[1]] I imagined that you actually would check the website when you researched this group. The details inviting everyone to their Commemorative Event celebrating John Curtin is also there. The reason I included it was because of the paradox it seems to raise about the orginisation's motives, don't either of you think it is a better angle to attack rather than just stating they are populists? Sci.notes

I don't see any mention of those events on the website. Remember it is your responsibility to cite your sources. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:19, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I can just imagine John Curtin's response at being "celebrated" by these neo-Nazi cultist filth. Adam 07:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still puzzling over the logic of ...to commemorate the Immortality of Prime Minister John Curtin , on the 60th anniversary of his death. Immortal - Dead? aren't those mutually exclusive? Is he a vampire? -Willmcw 07:15, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't previously heard of LaRouchist seances, but anything is possible. Possibly they are getting ready for when Fuhrer Lyndon drops off (he is 83 I think) and they have to get his latest directives from the Great Loony Bin in the Sky. Adam 08:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CEC history[edit]

The Citizens Electoral Council history (that I used to write the History section), are taken from a campaign DVD that I found produced by the party and sold on the streets by their members. Shane george 01:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said when I reverted your edit, there may be some useful facts in that source, but LaRouche materials are such a farrago of lies and nonsense that it is impossible to tell what is fact and what is fiction. (Just to take one example, Michael Danby has never called for the CEC to be banned). Adam 03:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche sources should not be used for Wikipedia articles. They are not reliable. -Willmcw 04:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

Does anyone object to a move to Citizens Electoral Council of Australia as the full name of this organisation? Frickeg 02:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Is there another organisation called the CEC anywhere else in the world? If there is I take back my objection, on the condition that Citizens Electoral Council becomes a thingy page. Otherwise, what is the point? (PS I am fulling intending to work on this article, I just haven't yet. Their environmental policies for example ...)~AFA Ю 01:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the "Citizens Electoral Council of Australia" the parties full name (and maybe it is Citizens Electoral Council of Victoria in the case of the state party)? C4sc4 (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Websites Deleted[edit]

I have deleted some websites bcause of pages not found notices and the Channel 9 Sunday page was the same as The Australian page. Kathleen.wright5 03:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership[edit]

The Info box states that the leader of the party is Craig Isherwood. The problem I have with this is that their WWW site http://www.cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=info&id=structure.htm does NOT list him as the leader. It lists him as the National Secretary and also Treasurer. As Brian McCarthy is the national chairman, maybe he should be named as their leader. Vk2tds 00:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I checked and found a PDF of a Nov/Dec 2006 newsletter announcing the change.[2] Go ahead and change it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian McCarthy is the National Chairman. Can someone please change this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.149.77.226 (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early history[edit]

Can someone write a bit more about the party's early history in the late 1980s? Since they did get an MP elected to a state parliament in that era, it seems like it warrants mentioning. Rebecca 05:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Challenge of assertion of position of political spectrum[edit]

How can the CEC be considered far right, when they strongly oppose globalisation and deregulation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.193.41 (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Labels like that should only be used when undisputed. See also Talk:European Workers Party. --Marvin Diode 15:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having taken a look at Citizens Electoral Council#Platform, I am removing that characterization. --Marvin Diode 17:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean you made that determination on your own? That's original research. There are sources that call the CEC "right wing". Are there any sources that dispute that characterization? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your reasoning. Placing the party in a category is an editorial decision, not a research decision, and should only be made if the issue is beyond dispute. The article itself, in Citizens Electoral Council#Platform, would appear to contradict the category. If there is a published opinion that says the party is right wing, it should be included in the body of the article. But even if someone strongly desires to categorize the party as right wing, it should not be done if there is any doubt. --Marvin Diode 14:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For you to decide that the party is not far right, despite three sources, is original research. There is no dispute among reliable sources. The sources are in English, not Swedish. If there are sources that says the CEC is left wing, or even moderate, then I'd agree there's a dispute. But your opinion of their platform doesn't count in this matter. (Nothing personal) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are using the template for political parties as an opportunity to post criticism. I have examined a variety of Wikipedia articles on the parties listed at List of political parties in Australia, and no other party is treated that way -- the descriptions used come from the parties' self-descriptions. So, I am changing the CEC listing so as to conform to the way the other parties are treated. You can post your criticism in the body of the article. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of? Timeshift (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The party's "self-description". Where are we getting it from? I don't see them calling themselves "republican, protectionist" on their "About us" page. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Their main self-description seems to be "peace through economic development" which does not conveniently fit any ideological category. However, "protectionism" is certainly documented in their "history and philosophy" statement [3] and I think it is permissible to infer from their demands for "sovereignty" and opposition to monarchy [4] that they are republican. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, in other words, you replaced well-sourced material with unsourced original research. And you think that's an improvement? Perhaps we should re-reead "WP:V" and "WP:NOR". While we want to be neutral and fair, making up stuff doesn't help. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't do anything, other than to attempt to make a constructive contribution on a talk page. However, I think that Terrawatt's point has merit, that being that comparable articles about other minor Australian parties do not place criticism in the descriptive box. --Marvin Diode (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the sourced content is rejected, and the added conent is unsourced, I've split the difference and removed the "ideology" entirely. If we can find an unequivocal statement then we can quote that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about simply saying their political ideology is based on the LaRouche movement per my edit(s)? Timeshift (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. Good idea. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. It's nice to finally agree on something. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to LaRouche_movement#Australia, "LaRouche supporters gained control of the formerly far-right Citizens Electoral Council (CEC) in the mid-1990s." Jimp 14:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial statements section[edit]

I just split this off from the "Criticism" section, as the latter two paragraphs are not criticism of the CEC, but rather policies/statements made by the CEC. I'm not sure about the heading wording though, don't want it to be POV. Any ideas? Thanks. Cricketgirl 16:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it made more sense the way it was. The CEC's views on the ADC would not be especially notable, except as response to criticism from the ADC, which is the way that I read the previous format. --Terrawatt 22:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image needs replacement[edit]

Hello all...

An image used in the article, specifically Image:AlymCadre1.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bzzt. "This template is for legacy images and should not be added to images uploaded after 1st Jan 2006. GFDL presumed." Now run along little one. Timeshift (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CEC MPs?[edit]

I notice there was a CEC MP at Electoral district of Barambah. This should probably be added to a list in the article. Does anyone know of other CEC MPs? Was Perrett elected in Barambah under the CEC banner? Timeshift (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he was - he won a by-election in 1988 against the endorsed Nationals candidate - but he switched to the Nationals before the 1989 election. He later became a minister in the Borbidge Ministry, but lost his seat to One Nation at the 1998 election. There has been no other CEC MPs - he was elected when CEC was associated with Eric Butler and the League of Rights, before they got taken over by the LaRouche people. Orderinchaos 10:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Orderinchaos said. Perrett's short term as a CEC rep is already listed; I suppose it can't hurt to highlight that again at the bottom if you want, but there aren't any others. Rebecca (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Out of sheer interest, any idea if detailed results of the by-election are available? Timeshift (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I'll create a shell article to house them, if nobody minds expanding it into an article. Orderinchaos 10:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. By no means complete, and unfortunately the best source I have on the by-election (the Political Chronicle) isn't actually terribly comprehensive in this instance. Pretty much all the useful stuff is there. Might try SMH/Age on Factiva later. Orderinchaos 10:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim supporters?[edit]

There does not seem to be any basis for the claim that "In the mid-2000s, the party found support from Muslim groups opposed to the detention of suspected terrorists by the United States at Guantanamo Bay detention camp". One link is dead, the other makes no such claim. This allegation ought to be deleted.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Left wing?[edit]

If the CEC is inspired and close to the LaRouche movement, it is left wing, nor right wing.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of their policies as listed in the article seem left-wing. Jimp 14:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Citizens Electoral Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Citizens Electoral Council. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Citizens Electoral Council. 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) 06:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needs update and restructure?[edit]

The article contains a confusing mix of references to the CEC and ACP which appear to stem from the party’s renaming in 2007.

To preserve adequate references to the history of the party I would propose the article be restructured to move all defences to the CEC into a History sub-section, or introduce a timeline structure of sub-headings to the article’s body to preserve pre-2007 information.

I am not an expert on either the CEC or ACP, not involved with the party (either now or then). I noted the outdated content via use of the page to get basic information on the ACP.

A restructure would likely require input from someone familiar with the party and its history to ensure accuracy is maintained. Ayrendal (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The party wasn't renamed in 2007 but vastly more recently - it seems to have happened around 2020 but I cannot find an exact source for that. I don't see a problem necessarily with just renaming mentions of "CEC" to "ACP" as it doesn't appear that anything else changed other than the name, but it may cause confusion because it's vastly better known as the CEC. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_Citizens_Party&oldid=1198702518"