text:
Talk:Australian Democrats

Untitled
Previous discussions: Archive 1  Archive 2

Time to end use of WP as dispute battleground?
The shilly-shallying of two purported AD parties to establish their respective websites and officebearers under WP endorsement has tested our patience for over two years since Brian Greig walked out, and the latest competing edits can be seen here and here. It is not our business to go on hosting such a dispute when we can simply decide which of these two is the real party--and dispense with the bogus one. According to the official AEC registrar, the real party's correspondence address is in South Australia, and that is the only party that should be recognised in WP until such time as there is a change in the official public record. Therefore, take notice that I intend to delete links to the website of the unrecognised group in seven days' time unless valid reasons are presented to the contrary. I have no personal POV in this matter, having resigned from the party in 1993 when it was a completely different organisation. Bjenks (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

 * It might be good to add material to the article about the internal (and obviously now external) manoeuvring that has led to the present divided situation. Recent history about the party is very thin in the article. Anything we add would, of course, require excellent sourcing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedically, the infighting should be ignored as trivia. The recent history is naturally "thin" because there has been little or no public presence. Imho, a great deal of the "Electoral fortunes" content should now be pruned and replaced by one or two paragraphs covering the Kernot-Lees period and the GST hubris, followed by a short exposition of the subsequent electoral rejection and demise. To date, I've disqualified myself from this because of my past POV issues. If no other editor is interested in taking it on, I would see that as another reasonable signal to prune the whole content into a more digestible article. Bjenks (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 one external links on Australian Democrats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080622171235/http://www.abc.net.au:80/news/items/200601/1542299.htm?tasmania to http://www.abc.net.au/news/items/200601/1542299.htm?tasmania
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081205083545/http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1683993.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1683993.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081205091132/http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200608/s1727334.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200608/s1727334.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080418232221/http://www.abc.net.au:80/news/newsitems/200610/s1770646.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1770646.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100203230016/http://vec.vic.gov.au:80/stateby2007resultAlbertParkDistrict.html to http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/stateby2007resultAlbertParkDistrict.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081123082003/http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ni/2007-279/default.asp to http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ni/2007-279/default.asp

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Query
Friends:

The Wikipedia article is about the Australian Democrats, that is, the political party of that name. The opening paragraph alleges that the Democrats are "extinct". Not sure about that exact word - but let's put that to one side for the moment. If the Democrats are extinct, why is there a side box with the name of a President and Secretary? And indeed with a link to a current website?

AustralianEditor83 (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC) :  Further to above comment, my suggestion is to remove the side box. Please comment here if you think this this is problematic. AustralianEditor83 (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC) <Comment
 * The only point of that action would be to mask the problem by blanking info about the deregistered party's current nature. The term 'extinct' cannot apply until all life has ceased. Even then, as in the case of the DLP, a party can be brought back to life. To my mind, as per the Democratic Labor Party (historical), we must now have separate articles for the defunct Australian Democrats (historical) and the present impotent yet active organisation. The two deserve to be wikilinked because of the apparent partial continuity of membership and policy ideals.Bjenks (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The current AD is non-notable though. No sources, no registration - it may as well be five dudes in a shed. Should they become notable, as in the case of the revived DLP, then that is a possibility. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, notability is a problem for the non-parliamentary new brigade. However, a reading of their most recent journal shows there is still a thread of continuity, provided mainly by the support of 12-year Senate leader Lyn Allison (Vic) on p. 7. However, as they say, yesterday's rooster is today's feather duster. I note, too, that most energy is coming from SA and Victoria, the two state divisions which pushed for expulsions and suspensions of members they disagreed with--stamping out the foundation principles of democratic membership as extolled by Sir Mark Oliphant. (I found it ironic to see Sir Mark's words quoted in the journal.) I suggest, however, that continuity alone is a slender ground for notability. I'm for applying a cut-off (at 2008) of the historical Australian Democrats. The current organisation (which is NOT yet dead) could be mentioned either in a final section/paragraph or given a brief separate article with strict limitations according to notability and verifiability. Again I (alone in this forum) declare a potential conflict of interest as a former AD member. Bjenks (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with much of what BJenks has to say. However a question: does anyone have a reliable and independent source to support the assertion that D.Churchill and R.Howe are currently president and secretary, as is asserted by this Wikipedia article? I know there are Australian Electoral Commission documents. I don't think these don't actually assert that the above persons previously held these offices, but it can be inferred from the documents. However these AEC documents are now dated, and in any case these documents refer to the former registered political party entity, which no longer exists. There is also the Australian-hyphenated-Democrats website, but Wikipedia (see RS) cautions against relying on self-published sources, especially those of a self-serving nature. Thus my question. AustralianEditor83 (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In the absence for any reliable source indicating that D.Churchill and R.Howe are indeed currently president and secretary, I propose to delete this in another 48 hours, in accordance with WP:RS. In the meantime, if anyone does become aware of any reliable source, please indicate here on this talk page. AustralianEditor83 (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Australian Democrats. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110526164818/https://www.australianpolitics.com/parties/democrats/97-10-15kernot-resigns.shtml to http://australianpolitics.com/parties/democrats/97-10-15kernot-resigns.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100405091416/https://australianpolitics.com:80/elections/1998/news3.shtml to http://australianpolitics.com/elections/1998/news3.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110315151452/https://www.treasury.gov.au/contentitem.asp?ContentID=167&NavID= to http://www.treasury.gov.au/contentitem.asp?ContentID=167&NavID=
 * Added tag to http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,19698296%255E910,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100416165522/http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/State2006resultbypartyUH.html to http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/State2006resultbypartyUH.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100405222227/http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/State2002resultbypartyprovince.html to http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/State2002resultbypartyprovince.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091026234626/https://democratic.audit.anu.edu.au/papers/focussed_audits/200501_jaensch_parties.pdf to http://democratic.audit.anu.edu.au/papers/focussed_audits/200501_jaensch_parties.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Australian Democrats. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604000618/http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?ID=393706&TABLE=HANSARDS to http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?ID=393706&TABLE=HANSARDS
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927184311/http://australianpolitics.com/parties/democrats/01-01-20lees-speech.pdf to http://australianpolitics.com/parties/democrats/01-01-20lees-speech.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128142344/http://australianpolitics.com/words/2006/archives/00000254.shtml to http://australianpolitics.com/words/2006/archives/00000254.shtml

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed party "merger"
It is now quite clear that the "Australian Democrats" has proven unsustainable despite attempts to retain the name as an electoral foundation. The proposed merger with the "Country Minded" microparty will involve a new constitution and thus the establishment of a different party, even if the AD name is applied to it. I submit that for WP purposes, any purported continuation will require a new article, as was done to differentiate the Democratic Labor Party (historical) from the Democratic Labour Party (Australia). The present article will then be re-edited to remove a great volume of inappropriate trivia, as previously discussed on this page. Bjenks (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

 * Yeah, that makes sense. I think there should be one section succinctly documenting the various "Democrats" drama post-2007 but the whole history section needs a rewrite so it doesn't focus on trivia anyway. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ,, The Democrats were finished as a serious party in 2007. Everything since then has been the AD version of The People's Front of Judea/Judean People's Front. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 11:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

What is the status of the actual organisation that is/was the Democrats? Has the party ever actually been dissolved? Obviously it was deregistered, but if there's a group of people still operating under the original constitution I don't think it would be correct for us to just decide that the party no longer exists. Deregistration ≠ not existing. Are there any sources (reliable or otherwise) that talk about the party's history post-2008, i.e. the competing factions that are mentioned in the article? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Wikipedia's treatment of the DLP is a bad example to follow. No other sources – media outlets, the parliamentary website – claim that the pre-1978 and post-1978 DLP are separate entities. The Democratic Labour Party (Australia) article states that the party was founded in 1955, and also states "The Australian Electoral Commission considers the current DLP to be legally the same as the earlier DLP". Wikipedia should be following reliable sources not ignoring them ... there should be a single DLP article covering the entirety of the party's history. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, , My grandfather sided with the DLP in the 1955 Split, The Sandringham News called him "Victoria's Chifley". He stood twice for the DLP in Flinders and in 1961 helped save the Menzies Government with his preferences. When the DLP 1978 national conference passed a motion of dissolution, he returned to the ALP. The AEC being dingbats doesn't mean we should treat the Continuity DLP as if it were the original one and likewise the little factional grouplets claiming to be the heirs to the pre-2008 party should not be lumped in with the parliamentary Australian Democrats. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The AEC, the Australian Parliamentary Library, election databases, election reference works, the ABC, other major media outlets, etc., consider them to be the same party. The APL's history of the DLP states "In Victoria, the vote passed by a few votes and 14 voters were found to be concurrently members of other political parties. Three-quarters of the Victorian branch’s executive rejected the vote and continued the party in that state." We need to be following what actual sources not ignoring them based on our own opinions of whether a party is legitimate or not. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the Democrats talk page is the place to be having this discussion - it's not the first time that it's been proposed at the DLP talk page, and it always fails not for opposition but for complete lack of interest, so perhaps better had there. As for the Democrats, there has been some newspaper coverage of the various factions but I'm not sure they could be said to still be operating under the original constitution given the nature of some of the struggles. I have no problem with documenting it here (given very limited weight amidst the broader history of the party) as some kind of "aftermath"-type section, and then in the unlikely event some kind of continuity-Democrat party actually gets re-registered or wins a seat we can cross that bridge when we get to it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with that approach. —The ASC, AEC and other authorities are faced with dealing with an archived/once-registered "party name", whose successors have contrived not to change for that very reason. Like the DLP successors (who actually changed the spelling of the former name) they are cashing in on the name to pursue electoral hopes, but lack the notability of significant parliamentary status. In Wikipedia, we are surely not obliged to keep transferring the past notability to whatever purported successors take on the name. Bjenks (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We are obliged to follow reliable sources not users' personal opinions. So you're arguing that the DLP candidates who ran at the 1976 Victorian state election and then again in 1979 were in fact members of two distinct political parties? It's ludicrous and totally contrary to media reporting, reference works, and common sense. Are there any other sources that take Wikipedia's path of declaring them to be separate parties? I haven't found any. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you guys having an involved argument about the DLP article on the Democrats talk page? The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As this merged party is being registered under the AEC, once it is registered, should we create a separate page? Catiline52 (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that's the best way to go. And then we can reinstate the infobox on the basis that this refers to the historical party. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this article, when it becomes Australian Democrats (historical) should draw a line at 2008, as the "Judean Peoples' Front" infighting of the non-parliamentary brigade afterwards isn't really notable or interesting. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it needs some kind of "aftermath" section to explain what happened after the show was over, but agree that the article as a whole really needs to be refocused on when it was an actual party. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why 2008 specifically? The last elected member resigned in 2009, and the party didn't deregister until 2015. Catiline52 (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's probably reasonable to put the cutoff for this article at 2015 and use the date of deregistration, but it desperately needs all the post-2009 stuff to get constrained into one smallish section with appropriate weight rather than defining the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless sources actually refer to them as separate parties rather than a revival, then they should both be in this article. Creating a new article would be original research. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As i think would agree, these "revival Democrats' are really just Countryminded using a (relatively) known name to try to win support for their own beliefs. "New lick of paint, same old car". Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Paul and I edit conflicted. The point is that sources aren't clear: there are an awful lot of sources discussing the Democrats in the context of being defunct, and then occasionally the regional newspapers pick up a press release from a handful of people claiming to be reactivating the Democrats, much like Clive Palmer claims to be reactivating the original UAP but without the attention given to it. Which Wikipedia takes notice of is an editorial decision, and not an explicitly clear-cut one either way. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , . Wikipedia should be extremely cautious about connecting the Australian Democrats when it was a serious parliamentary party (i.e. before it lost all its Federal Senate seats) with the Monty Python's Life of Brian-esque "Judean Peoples' Front"/"Peoples' Front of Judea" infighting and tiny grouplets in the aftermath. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering there is conflict over the proposed merged Australian Democrats and the un-merged Australian Democrats of Queensland, I feel that there is sufficient evidence that the merger has created a new party that should be given a new article and treated similarly to any other party merger. Catiline52 (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Ivar the Boneful is, of course, right in returning us to the principle of reliable sources, which is why our first step must be to establish the integrity of the article's present content, much of which is not well verified, and/or has been rendered trivial by the passage of time. Bjenks (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

One Nation/ 1998 federal election
As seen on our page for the 1998 Australian federal election, One Nation got the largest share of the vote of all the minor parties that year, which means that they were the largest minor party in that election. That's certainly what Psephos said on his site. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

 * One of those statements doesn't necessarily follow from the other. One Nation were not the largest minor party in parliament following the election, or in the amount of MPs elected at that election - the Democrats were, as they were across the entire stated time period. The sentence talks about the "largest minor party", not the minor party with the largest vote. That said, I don't object to a caveat at the end of that sentence along the lines of "...though One Nation polled more votes in 1998" to remove any confusion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Australian Democrats status
Hi everyone, I wrote here a while ago asking why my edits were removed when they contained current references. It was deleted. I added the references and current news back and it has been undone. To the bet of my knowledge the Australian Democrats are a current political party who were deregistered in 2016 and are currently seeking re-registration with the AEC. If this is not the case I'm happy to talk about it but I can't see any evidence that it isn't. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elswyth (talk • contribs) 07:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the Life of Brian-esque multiple little factions, each claiming to be the "real" Australian Democrats, are a very different beast to the serious 1977-2009 parliamentary party. It is a matter of WP:UNDUE. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've included references from multiple news articles about the current Australian Democrats attempts to be re-registered with the AEC as a continuation of the 1977-2009 party. As this is verifiable I'm not sure why you are deleting this. I can't see any evidence the Australian Democrats are not a current unregistered political party with active members who are seeking reregistration currently. Elswyth (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The AEC dispute has shown that there appears to have been two successor groups to the Australian Democrats. The Australian Democrats (Queensland Division) disagreed with the registration of the new party, the merger of other branches and CountryMinded. This, added with the creation of a new constitution post-merger (Mentioned by Bjenks, however, a source would be good before the decision is made) appears as a clear divide between the historical party and the recently registered one. I'd suggest a new page would be created for this incarnation of the party, however, I'd like other editors opinions. Catiline52 (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add a source that I just found. It confirms that there was a split over who was the successor. (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-02/democrats-trying-to-restart-but-queensland-group-objects/10958726) Catiline52 (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose creating a separate page, all the reporting that I've seen describes the recently registered party as a revival rather than an entirely new party. By all means note the dispute between the claimed successors, but we should follow reliable sources. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The new party, as it is on Wikipedia right now is registered with the AEC by original Democrats, and is thus the revived w as it is a direct continuation of the party that was deregistered in 2016. The Queensland group is more of a “splinter group” who left in 2014.... hope that helps!

I do believe the Queensland Democrats INC have a seperate Wikipedia page. So its been sorted a while ago. ThePolitix (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Hi, sorry for not indenting my previous comment. I do support Cataline’s addition of a “not to be confused” bar in regards to the QLD division. I am an insider and would be happy to answer any questions related to the state of some of the minor parties. Thanks guys!! And sorry for forgetting to indent. ThePolitix (talk) 07:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Sank without a trace at the election
This was entirely foreseeable and the attempt to link this Judean Peoples' Front grouplet to the historical serious AD parliamentary party should never have been entertained. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, in the real world such comparison is laughable. However, WP has its own criteria, which involve us in awaiting a logically documented finality... Bjenks (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

 * As someone with inside knowledge, the state of the party as it stands now, is indeed a continuation of the original party. The “friction” present was primarily between the Queensland State Division and the Federal and other State Divisions. As stated earlier, the Queensland group essentially “split” from the federal party in 2014. The state divisions and federal entity retained the status as an Incorporated Association, after Queensland split - and are thus continuations of the party. The party itself is in a stage of rebuilding, with many old members pre-2004 era reregistering. The party did not intend to win any seats this election and ran a limited campaign, as their primary focus is to rebuild. The merger with CountryMinded honestly didn’t change much, apart from establish a focus group for rural areas - the party itself essentially remained the same. The party, as it stands today is stable and is experiencing rapid growth - post election. Many members that have rejoined held membership in the 80’s-00’s. Essentially, the current party is a continuation of the previous party and continues to rebuild their base. I do hope that helps, feel free to leave a message on my talk page.  ThePolitix (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Essentially, the registered federal party is an official continuation in every state, except Queensland. Old members and office holders pre-2009 are rejoining. There is no friction within the registered party in 2019. Once again, feel free to discuss this. I’m also aware of situations in other minor/micro parties as well. Thanks!! ThePolitix (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the AD Queensland Division predates the new "federal entity" and was bound constitutionally to the former national party, will you explain what you term the "split" of 2014? Is the new federal entity continuing the "unconstitutional" and "unlawful" [words of then party legal advisor Peter Finkelstein] top-down approach to state divisions which was established in 1993, to the abandonment of the former party's grassroot, or bottom-up founding principle? Bjenks (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your question, and In regards to the split, I intended to say that the Queensland Entity severed relations with the Federal Entity and other State Entities In 2014. I do am unsure, but I do believe the split was over the (and in what I agree to be unconstitutional and unlawful) “top-down” approach at the time. So essentially, the split involved the departure of the QLD state division from the other federal and state divisions. At the time of the split, the constitution of the party was the same as it was, pre-2009. Following the Queensland Split, all other State divisions(and the federal entity) remained the same(as it was preceding 2009), and continued to function. Thus, they were a continuation the same party. To answer your second question, the federal and state entities (post QLD split) maintained the same constitution, until 2019. *A side note, many members in 2019 were members before 2009. From 2016 to 2018, there were major developments within the party. Many members whom’ had left prior to, and during the 07’ defeat returned and demanded change. The members of the party then voted and agreed on a new constitution for 2019. The party merged with country minded, (which is now essentially the “Country Democrats” division) for rural representation. The new constitution was agreed on by the members in a vote. Following the 2018-2019 changes, there was a fundental change and the party’s “Bottum-up” grassroots principle was restored. All members vote for party policy, can submit suggestions, vote for leaders etc... and the party has returned to its previous stance as a participatory democracy. To answer your second question, the party no longer follows the “top-down” approach to state divisions, and the “bottom-up” principle has been restored. The party registered in 2019 is the official continuation of the party, and seems to be growing at quite a fast rate following the 2019 fed election. It’s undergoing a process of rebuilding, as many old members rejoin. I hope that helps!! Would be happy to clarify anything else. ThePolitix (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Apologies for the improper indent and spelling mistakes in my last reply, using a mobile phone. ThePolitix (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

 * On a very quick note, I do believe a number ex-parliamentarians are still members, following the 2019 developments. ThePolitix (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Sorry, the QLD Democrat’s have no official connection with the original AD’s apart from the fact that it was created by some former democrats 6 or so years ago. The real Queensland division was deregistered 6 years ago but continued to function within the party. When it cancelled itself on the registration of businesses, a renegade grouplet stole the name. The QLD Democrat’s INC have no connection with the real Australian Democrat’s as they are a completely seperate entity that was formed independently of the main party or the official Queensland division. ThePolitix (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Status: The Official continuation and Serious Again.
Hi,

I’m an insider on various issues in minor parties, particularily in the state of New South Wales. Upon discussion with current, former and members who are considering rejoining; The Australian Democrats, as it stands today is a continuation of the original party.

I understand, that there is a belief that the new AD is some sort of Judean People’s Front, this is not the case. Following the blowout at the 2007 election, the Australian Democrats remained as the same party until it merged with country minded in 2019.

 * Disagreements Between Federal and QLD splinter

I do believe it is time to clear up the confusion over supposed conflict.

In 2014, the Queensland State Division Executives decided to leave the Federal Entity, and sever relationships with other state divisions. This was over disagreements with party direction and a “top down” leadership approach(As Discussed with Bjenks). The Queensland Division, as stated in their objection and on their website, wanted to be the Queensland Representatives of the Australian Democrats. The Queensland Division is a splinter group of the Australian Democrats. Despite this, many members in Queensland remained in the federal Australian Democrat Entity.

Essentially, the only group that declares itself as a federal continuation of the party is the current, registered party. However, at state level there are two parties that claim to represent Queensland; The Australian Democrats and Australian Democrats INC(The Splinter Group). Since the AEC objection was not upheld, it seems as though the splinter group is not a continuation of the original party.

Currently, the state of Queensland is represented by the Australian Democrats registered by the AEC.

 * Status 2007-2016

The Party as it stands today, is a direct continuation of the party pre-2007. The NSW, QLD and VIC divisions retained the strongest membership levels, from 2007 onwards, however did experience significant losses following the 2007 defeat. The party itself, up until the loss of registration in 2016 did not change - the structure was still the same, as were the members. Excluding the QLD splinter group, there were no fractions(new groups) or factions within the party, in other states and nationally.

In 2016, a vote was brought to the table to officially dissolve the party; however it failed. Instead, members drafted a plan to rebuild the party. This would be a long process.

 * Major Developments In 2018

There were major changes undertaken in 2018. The unfair(and unconstitutional) “top-down” approach was removed. The party members began to vote on new clauses and policy direction. Talks began between the Australian Democrats and “Country Minded” to establish a Country Democrats division and to increase membership. This was agreed upon.

There were significant developments with membership in 2018, with many members rejoining.

 * 2019 Australian Democrats

In 2019, the Australian Democrats really started the process of rebuilding.

The members voted on, and agreed to a new constitution. The new constitution secured the “bottom-up” grassroots movement that was present in the party prior to 1993.

The merger with country minded did not have a significant impact on the constitutional change, where the only impact was the new country division, the country democrats.

The constitutional change reflected changes with technology - where all new changes to policy, direction or leadership are to be voted on by members online. The change means that changes to policy and leadership must go through the members first.

The Democrats stood a total of 7 candidates(6 senate and 1 house) and did not expect to win any seats. The campaign was very limited, and the party reregistered 4 days before the election.The primary objective was to spread the message and alert old members. This was successful, with a large increase in membership following the election.

Many members that rejoined were pleased to see the Party back, and favoured the return to the “bottom-up” democracy. The party as it stands today is very stable.

 * Conclusion

The Australian Democrats are a united party. There was always a continuation in membership and functionality since 2007. The party never “stopped” then “restarted” as it was always there, as were the people. Just because it was “unregistered” does not mean it did not exist.

For example, the NSW State Division(this can apply with all others, ex QLD) retained membership and had constant meetings pre-2007 and still up to now. The executives in the party were there before, and since the early 2000’s and were elected by the membership. There are a few new, young people that have signed up since 2007. There were no “splits” or fractures - there was only one united party that continued to function(QLD was the exception, as discussed earlier). Again, just to reiterate the only “separation” or “fracture” occurred with a splinter group in Queensland.

The party is preparing for the next federal and state elections, with a serious plan(as seen by their policy frameworks) and a united team.

I really do hope that helped. I’m happy to answer any questions. If you want to know anything about other minor parties in NSW, just ask.

Thank you all for your contributions, and the talk discussions too. ThePolitix (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Just to clarify, the current AD is an official continuation of the party before 2019, as voted on by the members. The merger was really more of a creation of a new division than anything else. Personally, I would recommend that someone(I’d be happy to) rename the “Country Minded” page to “Country Democrats.” ThePolitix (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

 * On a third note, I believe that the party is reverting to the participatory democracy it was prior to 1993, many members from that time in particular have rejoined and those members in particular have made major contributions to the party as of late. Personally, I’m not too sure what occurred in 1993 but am happy to see that the old “bottom-up” democracy has been restored. ThePolitix (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Country Democrats would need to be a sourced subsection of this page. CountryMinded was notable due to it being a political party, most party factions aren't notable unless it has substantial coverage. Catiline52 (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

 * On the face of it, these statements (though they await due verification) provide a good indication that genuine and positive renewal is taking place and that the Australian Democrats party is at last owning and confronting its past disastrous leadership mistakes—and is thus creating a possibility of return to the principles espoused by its founding members. Many thanks to both of the above correspondents. I have recent personal knowledge of some original members in my state of WA who have retained their membership (much to my surprise} through and beyond the altercations of 1993 and the GST crisis. A return to the foundation principles may at last offer the electorate a realistic option of ending the parliamentary and governmental chaos of the past two decades. The country division, if properly constituted, is an excellent concept. It is to be hoped that the Queensland division instituted by Macklin et al can be reintegrated though, IMHO, the conduct of its former senators Kernot, Woodley and Cherry will have to be recognised as generally destructive to the party's principles. Bjenks (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Thank you. In regards to the country democrats question, I agree with Cataline52 in that we should have a sourced sub-section on the page. I’m happy to work on it. Thanks, once again. ThePolitix (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Update: QLD Democrats seem to have a minimal presence, apart from sporadic social media posts. No updates to the website since 2017 apart. The only event was an objection, which wasn’t sustained. QLD Democrats seem to have either “rejoined,”or “disbanded.” Unsure who the current leader/executive is, if there are any. So as this, decided to delete the header(that I believe I may have suggested) seeing as the division is quite irrelevant at this stage, but is indeed important to the history of the party in QLD. That aside, the AD’s seem to be doing very well from what I’ve heard. Thank you my fellow editors!!! (P.s. unsure if you guys cover US Politics pages, they may need some updating) ThePolitix (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

 * P.S. thanks for the civility, really appreciate the discussion on this talk page. Have been looking at Venezuelan Politics pages and the Wikipedia edit wars even have their own Wikipedia page... P.S. Edit wars really suck. ThePolitix (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, just as clarification - I was wrong about the Queensland Division. The Incorporated entity in Queensland actually has no connection with the current party. The old Queensland Democrats division deregistered a while back, and some opportunistic ex-Dems took the name. There was always a Queensland division, however the “incorporated” official division was cancelled for whatever reasons - and that can be seen on the register of companies.

There is a Queensland division, and they have been with the party since before this renegade group formed. Again, I’m not too sure around the circumstances of the registration of the new entity - but do know that the party has limited knowledge of where they came from - apart from the fact that they were ex-Dems.

Sorry, just spoke to some people who I know about it. Queensland Division INC is not connected to the former Queensland Division. A Queensland Division continues to operate in the Democrat’s, with many of the same people preceding the renegades registration.

No ex-parliamentarians are affiliated with the “renegade grouplet.” ThePolitix (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

 * Sorry just to clarify; the Queensland Division INC is NOT a continuation of the party in Queensland. The people who were on the state executive in 2013/14 are still in the official AD’s or have left since then. There is an official Queensland Division but it is not that group. The AEC further rejected “Queensland Division Inc’s” objection to party registration.

So once again; the Queensland Division Inc. has no official link to it’s claimed predecessor and is not a continuation of the Queensland Division’s initial entity, as can be seen in the registration of companies.

Sorry, I got the constitution thing mixed up with something else.

Thanks!! ThePolitix (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Apparent POV/OR edits
In a series of edits by IP editor 222.164.212.168 (talk) has suggested changes which imho require some discussion. and I reverted, requesting the editor to seek consensus on this page. The questionable edits were:

 * Proposed link to Aaya Ram Gaya Ram
 * change in subhead from "1986: Foundation and Don Chipp's leadership" to "1977–1986: Foundation under Don Chipp's leadership and "keep the bastards honest" approach"
 * KTBH expanded content
 * Changed emphasis for KTBE

Apparently, the changes are intended to back up a "See also' link to this article inserted by the IP editor in another recently edited article, Aaya Ram Gaya Ram. The relevance of that article to Australian Democrats anD/or to Don Chipp is questionable. "Keep the bastards honest" was a popular electoral slogan but in no way a key principle of the Democrats.

My invitation to discuss the edits was responded to by counter-reversion, followed by an extraordinary attack on me at my talk page. I'm not into edit wars and have a declared personal and professional interest (up top), so must leave it to the group to sort this out. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

New national president?
The infobox insertion of Lyn Allison as new president seems premature as there is no verification, not even on the party website. Bjenks (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I now see the website announcement and update in Allison's WP article. Maybe somewhat notable, but not yet noted by news media. I'd like to know whether the old Queensland Democrats will be brought back in or continue to use the AD name independently. Bjenks (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting question indeed! BTW, I've just made a minor edit regarding the history of the registration process earlier this year. The earlier entry refered to the "former" Queensland Division. Now, it could well be correct that the Qld Division has folded, but I think that in the absence of any reliable source for this, which is required under Wikipedia policies, perhaps it is prudent and simplest to refer to the Australian Democrats (Queensland Division). Sue2016 (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think we'd be implying the former Qld Division has folded but finding some way to explain that it's the incorporated continuity of the party as deregistered in 2016. The thing is that, as there's no real evidence that the "new" Democrats have a Qld branch (they didn't run any candidates at the election and Google doesn't turn up anything besides the contact person on the website) and the "old" Qld Democrats have are an incorporated body with a clear and ongoing internet presence at least, I don't know that we need to get into it yet. The 2020 state election might clear up this issue a good bit if the ECQ has to make a decision between competing claimants to the name. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi sorry for the late note, the Queensland Democrats actually have no connection with the party. The Queensland division deregistered and some opportunistic ex-Dems went in and took the name. A Queensland division does exist; and that’s part of the main party. The Queensland democrats incorporated one has no real connection with the party. ThePolitix (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

 * Sorry for the improper indentation, forgot the syntax unfortunately. There are some rumours that the renegade grouplet in Queensland has folded. Just to clarify, I was incorrect in prior stating that there was an official link with this grouplet and the preceding QLD Democrats Division - there isn’t one. The Queensland Division’s company registration must have been cancelled at some stage, then this renegade group must have “stolen the name.” There are no talks between the parties - and there are a couple hundred members in the Official Queensland Division that is affiliated with the registered party. Once again, sorry about getting it wrong earlier. QLD Democrat’s have no official link to the former /co current official QLD Division apart from the fact that they were established by some disgruntled ex-members 6-7 years ago. Hope that helps!! ThePolitix (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

 * I think this best sums it up - if you look up the register of businesses, you will notice that this division is not the same entity as the Queensland Democrat’s from before. It was created in 2013 or 2014 and has no official connection with the main party. Hope that helps, and sorry for saying otherwise earlier - I was misinformed. ThePolitix (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

 * Still hard to know what to do about it given the lack of reliable sources - until the AEC or ECQ has to arbitrate the issue we're a bit in the dark. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

 * Agreed. I would say in a couple of months/ in the coming year there may be a development of sorts. If the official Queensland Division regains state membership - that’s probably our best verifier. The main “hard evidence” that exists is this - https://abr.business.gov.au/ABN/View?abn=61842409808 <- the current grouplet.

The official incorporated association there from before-> https://abr.business.gov.au/ABN/View?abn=95135496452 ThePolitix (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

 * As you can see, the Queensland Democrats INC are not a continuation, rather a new registration filed in 2018. ThePolitix (talk) 08:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I remain unconvinced that the Continuity Australian Democrats are notable without seats in any state or federal parliament and with a share of the national vote comparable to those British leftist grouplets that Monty Python skewered so well. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Our opinions about their notability aren't really relevant in this context, where no one is advocating that they have their own article, and the extent to which they need to be referenced here in their current form (if at all) fundamentally hinges on these questions of verifiability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

 * So what is ThePolitix going to do about the Queensland Democrats article which was started in 2012 and claims incorporation in 2011 and legitimacy since 1977? How is the general reader to distinguish one "grouplet" from another? Bjenks (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My search at ASIC indicates that Australian Democrats (Queensland Division) Incorporated is one of five registered AD entities (Regn date 29/5/1996). However, I was unable to find it in the Queensland register of associations. Bjenks (talk) 06:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Left or not?
The latest intriguing attempt to swing the Australian Democrats towards centre-left needs to be assessed with caution. It depends on a citation from John Warhurst (1997): "...until their disastrous internal split, the centre-left Democrats had experienced more than 20 years of balance of power politics and policy-making in the Senate." At that time it might have been argued that leader Cheryl Kernot's literal love affair with Labor was leftist or that successor Meg Lees support for Howard's GST was rightist. However the avowed centrism of the party cannot be disputed since it was from the start enshrined in the AD constitution. It used to be common for left-wingers to taint the Dems as right-wing simply because Don Chipp had switched allegiance from the Liberals. Such taunts are derived more from the mutant politics of the day than from any real truth and I'm sure the same applies to present-day attempts to attach a left-wing smear to the party and its people. However, the present "Australian Democrats" party seems to be a very different kettle of fish than the betrayed organisation of 1997, so we should let its people reveal themselves to reasonable and reliable current reporters instead of depending on far-gone 1997 ideas. Bjenks (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

 * I largely agree. I left it there because there were periods where it clearly was, even though it was better categorised overall across its history as a centrist party. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure why designations other than Centrist can't be applied. There was a period |under Powell where the Queensland Democrats were working with several socialist orgs and funding Green Left Weekly. If there are sources to say it was centrist, and sources to say it's centre-left, surely "Centre to centre-left" could be applied? Catiline52 (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You're offering a suggestion that variable POV can apply here, as I warned against above. That's not OK for WP, though may be fair game for canvassing in day-to-day media. I eventually found your GLW link to the interesting 1997 article by John Boyle which alludes to an AD "left tack" in "early 1990s" Brisbane City Council elections. OK, I believe every party has mavericks and behavioural variations, but rarely to a degree that can affect their encyclopedic ratings. Bjenks (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that it's just mavericks: the left-wing of the Democrats has always had people who were centre-left, with the party basically being that when they were in the ascendancy in any given jurisdiction. I still agree with you overall (using multiple labels confuses people who don't realise it was only in specific periods, and centrist is a better one-word summation of their general stance), but it's not for no reason that a bunch of elected Democrats wound up in the Greens (and not necessarily on their right flank either). The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That "bunch" of AD senators who moved toward the Greens was in fact limited to two or three out of 26. Of them, Janet Powell was in pre-AD days a leading anti-nuke camapaigner and Coulter was always a Greens fan. Jean Jenkins remained loyal to the party for 10 years after expulsion before joining the Greens. Norm Sanders had strong Greens sympathies but went back to an academic career. Unless you have better information, none of the others had any connection at all with the Greens. Anyway, in those early days the fledgling Greens were quite different to today's more purposeful lot. Bjenks (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

2022 federal election
In connection with the vanishing relevance of the reconstituted group, it can be recorded that "Australian Democrats" have contested NO House of Reps seats and only five Senate seats. In four of those seats, about one-fortieth (0.025%) of a quota was polled in first preferences. In the other state (Victoria), the result was 0.0526% --a little better than one-twentieth of a quota. Media recognition was almost non-existent, although The Guardian Aust included them in a list of "more than 30 minor and micro parties" and the Fin Review opined that the Teal Independents were "a reheated version of the now defunct Australian Democrats". Bjenks (talk) 03:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

 * Continuing progress of the Senate count in terms of comparative quotas is viewable here. Bjenks (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Political soapboxing?
@ IP editor 31.94.31.216. One of the problems with this edit is its self-sourcing to the website of the [rebirthed] Australian Democrats, a group which has yet to establish its notability. This surely stamps the edit as soapboxing. Then, the edit is placed in the historical context of the long-defeated parliamentary ADs where an independent reliable source would be more appropriate. It's a salutory reminder of how this article is being systematically tweaked to diminish important historical content in favour of promoting a separately constituted entty with very tenuous links to the famous old party which kept the bastards honest in Canberra. Bjenks (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Australian Democrats


text:
Delian League

The Delian League was a confederacy of Greek city-states, numbering between 150 and 330, founded in 478 BC under the leadership (hegemony) of Athens, whose purpose was to continue fighting the Persian Empire after the Greek victory in the Battle of Plataea at the end of the Second Persian invasion of Greece. The League functioned as a dual –offensive and defensive– alliance (symmachia) of autonomous states, similar to its rival association, the Peloponnesian League. The League's modern name derives from its official meeting place, the island of Delos, where congresses were held within the sanctuary of the Temple of Apollo; contemporary authors referred to the organization simply as "the Athenians and their Allies".

While Sparta excelled as Greece's greatest power on land, Athens turned to the seas becoming the dominant naval power of the Greek world. Following Sparta's withdrawal from the conflict with Persia, Athens took the lead of the Hellenic alliance accompanied by several states around the Aegean and the Anatolian coast. The Delian League was formed as an anti-Persian defensive association of equal city-states seeking protection under Athens, as the latter wished to extend its support towards the Ionian Greek colonies of Anatolia. By the mid-fifth century BC, the alliance had developed into a naval imperial power, called the Athenian Empire, where Athens established complete dominion and the allies became increasingly less autonomous. The alliance held an assembly of representatives in order to shape its policy, while the members swore an oath of loyalty to the coalition. The Delian League successfully accomplished its principal strategic goal by decisively expelling the remaining Persian forces from the Aegean. As a result, Persia would cease to pose a major threat to Greece for the following fifty years.

From its inception, Athens became the League's biggest source of military power, while more and more allies preferred to pay the dues in cash. Athens began to use the League's funds for its own purposes, like the reinforcement of its naval supremacy, which led to conflicts between the city and its less powerful allies, at times culminating in rebelions, like that of Thasos in 465 BC. The League's treasury initially stood in Delos until, in a symbolic gesture, Pericles moved it to Athens in 454 BC. By 431 BC, the threat that the League presented to Spartan hegemony combined with Athens's heavy-handed control of the Delian League prompted the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War; the League was dissolved upon the war's conclusion in 404 BC under the direction of Lysander, the Spartan commander. Witnessing Sparta's growing hegemony in the first half of the 4th century BC, Athens went on to partly revive the alliance, this time called the Second Athenian League, reestablishing its naval dominance in the eastern Mediterranean.

Background
The Greco-Persian Wars had their roots in the conquest of the Greek cities of Asia Minor, and particularly Ionia, by the Achaemenid Persian Empire of Cyrus the Great shortly after 550 BC. The Persians found the Ionians difficult to rule, eventually settling for sponsoring a tyrant in each Ionian city. While Greek states had in the past often been ruled by tyrants, this form of government was on the decline. By 500 BC, Ionia appears to have been ripe for rebellion against these Persian clients. The simmering tension finally broke into open revolt due to the actions of the tyrant of Miletus, Aristagoras. Attempting to save himself after a disastrous Persian-sponsored expedition in 499 BC, Aristagoras chose to declare Miletus a democracy. This triggered similar revolutions across Ionia, extending to Doris and Aeolis, beginning the Ionian Revolt.

The Greek states of Athens and Eretria allowed themselves to be drawn into this conflict by Aristagoras, and during their only campaigning season (498 BC) they contributed to the capture and burning of the Persian regional capital of Sardis. After this, the Ionian revolt carried on (without further outside aid) for a further five years, until it was finally completely crushed by the Persians. However, in a decision of great historic significance, the Persian king Darius the Great decided that, despite having subdued the revolt, there remained the unfinished business of exacting punishment on Athens and Eretria for supporting the revolt. The Ionian revolt had severely threatened the stability of Darius's empire, and the states of mainland Greece would continue to threaten that stability unless dealt with. Darius thus began to contemplate the complete conquest of Greece, beginning with the destruction of Athens and Eretria.

In the next two decades, there would be two Persian invasions of Greece, occasioning, thanks to Greek historians, some of the most famous battles in history. During the first invasion, Thrace, Macedon and the Aegean Islands were added to the Persian Empire, and Eretria was duly destroyed. However, the invasion ended in 490 BC with the decisive Athenian victory at the Battle of Marathon. After this invasion, Darius died, and responsibility for the war passed to his son Xerxes I.

Xerxes then personally led a second Persian invasion of Greece in 480 BC, taking an enormous (although oft-exaggerated) army and navy to Greece. Those Greeks who chose to resist (the 'Allies') were defeated in the twin simultaneous battles of Thermopylae on land and Artemisium at sea. All of Greece except the Peloponnesus thus having fallen into Persian hands, the Persians then seeking to destroy the Allied navy once and for all, suffered a decisive defeat at the Battle of Salamis. The following year, 479 BC, the Allies assembled the largest Greek army yet seen and defeated the Persian invasion force at the Battle of Plataea, ending the invasion and the threat to Greece.

The Allied fleet defeated the remnants of the Persian fleet in the Battle of Mycale near the island of Samos—on the same day as Plataea, according to tradition. This action marks the end of the Persian invasion, and the beginning of the next phase in the Greco-Persian wars, the Greek counterattack. After Mycale, the Greek cities of Asia Minor again revolted, with the Persians now powerless to stop them. The Allied fleet then sailed to the Thracian Chersonese, still held by the Persians, and besieged and captured the town of Sestos. The following year, 478 BC, the Allies sent a force to capture the city of Byzantion (modern day Istanbul). The siege was successful, but the behaviour of the Spartan general Pausanias alienated many of the Allies, and resulted in Pausanias's recall.

Formation
After Byzantion, Sparta was eager to end its involvement in the war. The Spartans greatly feared the rise of the Athenians as a challenge to their power. Additionally, the Spartans were of the view that, with the liberation of mainland Greece, and the Greek cities of Asia Minor, the war's purpose had already been achieved. There was also perhaps a feeling that establishing long-term security for the Asian Greeks would prove impossible. In the aftermath of Mycale, the Spartan king Leotychidas had proposed transplanting all the Greeks from Asia Minor to Europe as the only method of permanently freeing them from Persian dominion.

Xanthippus, the Athenian commander at Mycale, had furiously rejected this; the Ionian cities had been Athenian colonies, and the Athenians, if no one else, would protect the Ionians. This marked the point at which the leadership of the Greek alliance effectively passed to the Athenians. With the Spartan withdrawal after Byzantion, the leadership of the Athenians became explicit.

The loose alliance of city states which had fought against Xerxes's invasion had been dominated by Sparta and the Peloponnesian league. With the withdrawal of these states, a congress was called on the holy island of Delos to institute a new alliance to continue the fight against the Persians; hence the modern designation "Delian League". According to Thucydides, the official aim of the League was to "avenge the wrongs they suffered by ravaging the territory of the king."

In reality, this goal was divided into three main efforts—to prepare for future invasion, to seek revenge against Persia, and to organize a means of dividing spoils of war. The members were given a choice of either offering armed forces or paying a tax to the joint treasury; most states chose the tax. League members swore to have the same friends and enemies, and dropped ingots of iron into the sea to symbolize the permanence of their alliance. The Athenian politician Aristides would spend the rest of his life occupied in the affairs of the alliance, dying (according to Plutarch) a few years later in Pontus, whilst determining what the tax of new members was to be.

Members
The Delian League, also known as the Athenian Empire, was a collection of Greek city-states largely based around the Aegean Sea which operated under the hegemony of Athens. This alliance initially served the purpose of coordinating a united Greek front against a perceived looming Persian threat against the Ionian city-states which bordered it. The members of the Delian League were made to swear an oath of loyalty to the league and contributed mostly monetarily but in some instances donated ships or other forces. It was also the case that many democratic members of the League owed their freedom from oligarchic or tyrannical rule to Athens. Because of this, Athens gained an overwhelming advantage in the voting system conducted by relying on the support of democratic city-states Athens had helped into being. By 454 Athens moved the treasury of the Delian League from the Island of Delos to the Parthenon in Athens. Benefitting greatly from the influx of cash coming out of the 150-330 members, Athens used the money to reinforce its own naval supremacy and used the remaining funds to embellish the city with art and architecture. In order to maintain the new synoecism, Athens began using its greatly expanded military to enforce membership in the League. City-states who wished to leave the alliance were punished by Athens with force such as Mytilene and Melos. No longer considered her allies, Athens eventually began to refer to the members of the Delian League as "all the cities Athens rules." Athens also extended its authority over members of the League through judicial decisions. Synoecism under the Athenian Empire was enforced by resolving matters of and between states in Athens by courts composed of Athenian citizens and enforcing those decisions through the Athenian military.

Composition and expansion

In the first ten years of the league's existence, Cimon/Kimon forced Karystos in Euboea to join the league, conquered the island of Skyros and sent Athenian colonists there.

Over time, especially with the suppression of rebellions, Athens exercised hegemony over the rest of the league. Thucydides describes how Athens's control over the League grew: "Of all the causes of defection, that connected with arrears of tribute and vessels, and with failure of service, was the chief; for the Athenians were very severe and exacting, and made themselves offensive by applying the screw of necessity to men who were not used to and in fact not disposed for any continuous labor. In some other respects the Athenians were not the old popular rulers they had been at first; and if they had more than their fair share of service, it was correspondingly easy for them to reduce any that tried to leave the confederacy. The Athenians also arranged for the other members of the league to pay its share of the expense in money instead of in ships and men, and for this the subject city-states had themselves to blame, their wish to get out of giving service making most leave their homes. Thus while Athens was increasing her navy with the funds they contributed, a revolt always found itself without enough resources or experienced leaders for war."

Naxos
The first member of the league to attempt to secede was the island of Naxos in c. 471 BC. After being defeated, Naxos is believed (based on similar, later revolts) to have been forced to tear down its walls along with losing its fleet and vote in the League.

Thasos
In 465 BC, Athens founded the colony of Amphipolis on the Strymon river. Thasos, a member of the League, saw her interests in the mines of Mt. Pangaion threatened and defected from the League to Persia. She called to Sparta for assistance but was denied, as Sparta was facing the largest helot revolt in its history.

After more than two years of siege, Thasos surrendered to the Athenian leader Aristides and was forced back into the league. As a result, the fortification walls of Thasos were torn down, and they had to pay yearly tribute and fines. Additionally, their land, naval ships, and the mines of Thasos were confiscated by Athens. The siege of Thasos marks the transformation of the Delian league from an alliance into, in the words of Thucydides, a hegemony.

Policies of the League
In 461 BC, Cimon was ostracized and was succeeded in his influence by democrats such as Ephialtes and Pericles. This signaled a complete change in Athenian foreign policy, neglecting the alliance with the Spartans and instead allying with her enemies, Argos and Thessaly. Megara deserted the Spartan-led Peloponnesian League and allied herself with Athens, allowing construction of a double line of walls across the Isthmus of Corinth and protecting Athens from attack from that quarter. Roughly a decade earlier, due to encouragement from influential speaker Themistocles, the Athenians had also constructed the Long Walls connecting their city to the Piraeus, its port, making it effectively invulnerable to attack by land.

In 454 BC, the Athenian general Pericles moved the Delian League's treasury from Delos to Athens, allegedly to keep it safe from Persia. However, Plutarch indicates that many of Pericles's rivals viewed the transfer to Athens as usurping monetary resources to fund elaborate building projects. Athens also switched from accepting ships, men and weapons as dues from league members, to only accepting money.

The new treasury established in Athens was used for many purposes, not all relating to the defence of members of the league. It was from tribute paid to the league that Pericles set to building the Parthenon on the Acropolis, replacing an older temple, as well as many other non-defense related expenditures. The Delian League was turning from an alliance into an empire.

Wars against Persia
War with the Persians continued. In 460 BC, Egypt revolted under local leaders the Hellenes called Inaros and Amyrtaeus, who requested aid from Athens. Pericles led 250 ships, intended to attack Cyprus, to their aid because it would further damage Persia. After four years, however, the Egyptian rebellion was defeated by the Achaemenid general Megabyzus, who captured the greater part of the Athenian forces. In fact, according to Isocrates, the Athenians and their allies lost some 20,000 men in the expedition, while modern estimates place the figure at 50,000 men and 250 ships including reinforcements. The remainder escaped to Cyrene and thence returned home.

This was the Athenians' main (public) reason for moving the treasury of the League from Delos to Athens, further consolidating their control over the League. The Persians followed up their victory by sending a fleet to re-establish their control over Cyprus, and 200 ships were sent out to counter them under Cimon, who returned from ostracism in 451 BC. He died during the blockade of Citium, though the fleet won a double victory by land and sea over the Persians off Salamis, Cyprus.

This battle was the last major one fought against the Persians. Many writers report that a peace treaty, known as the Peace of Callias, was formalized in 450 BC, but some writers believe that the treaty was a myth created later to inflate the stature of Athens. However, an understanding was definitely reached, enabling the Athenians to focus their attention on events in Greece proper.

Wars in Greece
Soon, war with the Peloponnesians broke out. In 458 BC, the Athenians blockaded the island of Aegina, and simultaneously defended Megara from the Corinthians by sending out an army composed of those too young or old for regular military service. The following year, Sparta sent an army into Boeotia, reviving the power of Thebes in order to help hold the Athenians in check. Their return was blocked, and they resolved to march on Athens, where the Long Walls were not yet completed, winning a victory at the Battle of Tanagra. All this accomplished, however, was to allow them to return home via the Megarid. Two months later, the Athenians under Myronides invaded Boeotia, and winning the Battle of Oenophyta gained control of the whole country except Thebes.

Reverses followed peace with Persia in 449 BC. The Battle of Coronea, in 447 BC, led to the abandonment of Boeotia. Euboea and Megara revolted, and while the former was restored to its status as a tributary ally, the latter was a permanent loss. The Delian and Peloponnesian Leagues signed a peace treaty, which was set to endure for thirty years. It only lasted until 431 BC, when the Peloponnesian War broke out.

Those who revolted unsuccessfully during the war saw the example made of the Mytilenians, the principal people on Lesbos. After an unsuccessful revolt, the Athenians ordered the death of the entire male population. After some thought, they rescinded this order, and only put to death the leading 1000 ringleaders of the revolt, and redistributed the land of the entire island to Athenian shareholders, who were sent out to reside on Lesbos.

This type of treatment was not reserved solely for those who revolted. Thucydides documents the example of Melos, a small island, neutral in the war, though founded by Spartans. The Melians were offered a choice to join the Athenians, or be conquered. Choosing to resist, their town was besieged and conquered; the males were put to death and the women sold into slavery (see Melian dialogue).

Athenian Empire (454–404 BC)
By 454 BC, the Delian League could be fairly characterised as an Athenian Empire; a key event of 454 BC was the moving of the treasury of the Delian League from Delos to Athens. This is often seen as a key marker of the transition from alliance to empire, but while it is significant, it is important to view the period as a whole when considering the development of Athenian imperialism, and not to focus on a single event as being the main contributor to it. At the start of the Peloponnesian War, only Chios and Lesbos were left to contribute ships, and these states were by now far too weak to secede without support. Lesbos tried to revolt first, and failed completely. Chios, the most powerful of the original members of the Delian League save Athens, was the last to revolt, and in the aftermath of the Syracusan Expedition enjoyed success for several years, inspiring all of Ionia to revolt. Athens was nonetheless eventually able to suppress these revolts.

To further strengthen Athens's grip on its empire, Pericles in 450 BC began a policy of establishing kleruchiai—quasi-colonies that remained tied to Athens and which served as garrisons to maintain control of the League's vast territory. Furthermore, Pericles employed a number of offices to maintain Athens' empire: proxenoi, who fostered good relations between Athens and League members; episkopoi and archontes, who oversaw the collection of tribute; and hellenotamiai, who received the tribute on Athens' behalf.

Athens's empire was not very stable and after 27 years of war, the Spartans, aided by the Persians and Athenian internal strife, were able to defeat it. However, it did not remain defeated for long. The Second Athenian League, a maritime self-defense league, was founded in 377 BC and was led by Athens. The Athenians would never recover the full extent of their power, and their enemies were now far stronger and more varied.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Delian League


text:
August Horch

August Horch (12 October 1868 – 3 February 1951) was a German engineer and automobile pioneer, the founder of the manufacturing giant that eventually became Audi.

Beginnings
Horch was born in Winningen, Rhenish Prussia. His initial trade was as a blacksmith, and then was educated at Hochschule Mittweida (Mittweida Technical College). After receiving a degree in engineering, he worked in shipbuilding. Horch worked for Karl Benz from 1896, before founding A. Horch & Co. in November 1899, in Ehrenfeld, Cologne, Germany.

Manufacturing
The first Horch automobile was built in 1901. The company moved to Reichenbach in 1902 and Zwickau in 1904. Horch left the company in 1909 after a dispute, and set up in competition in Zwickau. His new firm was initially called Horch Automobil-Werke GmbH, but following a legal dispute over the Horch name, he decided to make another automobile company. (The court decided that Horch was a registered trademark on behalf of August's former partners and August was not entitled to use it any more). Consequently, Horch named his new company Audi Automobilwerke GmbH in 1910, Audi being the Latinization of Horch.

Post Audi
Horch left Audi in 1920 and went to Berlin and took various jobs. He published his autobiography, I Built Cars (Ich Baute Autos) in 1937. He also served on the board of Auto Union, the successor to Audi Automobilwerke GmbH he founded. Horch remained an honorary executive at Auto Union during and after its reincorporation in Ingolstadt, Bavaria in the late 1940s until his death in 1951, ultimately not living to see the later resurrection of his Audi brand a decade later under the ownership of Volkswagen.

He was an honorary citizen of Zwickau and had a street named for his Audi cars in both Zwickau and his birthplace Winningen. He was made an honorary professor at Braunschweig University of Technology. There is an August Horchstrasse (August Horch Street) at Audi's main manufacturing plant in Ingolstadt.

title: August Horch


text:
Avionics

Avionics (a blend of aviation and electronics) are the electronic systems used on aircraft. Avionic systems include communications, navigation, the display and management of multiple systems, and the hundreds of systems that are fitted to aircraft to perform individual functions. These can be as simple as a searchlight for a police helicopter or as complicated as the tactical system for an airborne early warning platform.

History
The term "avionics" was coined in 1949 by Philip J. Klass, senior editor at Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine as a portmanteau of "aviation electronics".

Radio communication was first used in aircraft just prior to World War I. The first airborne radios were in zeppelins, but the military sparked development of light radio sets that could be carried by heavier-than-air craft, so that aerial reconnaissance biplanes could report their observations immediately in case they were shot down. The first experimental radio transmission from an airplane was conducted by the U.S. Navy in August 1910. The first aircraft radios transmitted by radiotelegraphy, so they required two-seat aircraft with a second crewman to tap on a telegraph key to spell out messages by Morse code. During World War I, AM voice two way radio sets were made possible in 1917 by the development of the triode vacuum tube, which were simple enough that the pilot in a single seat aircraft could use it while flying.

Radar, the central technology used today in aircraft navigation and air traffic control, was developed by several nations, mainly in secret, as an air defense system in the 1930s during the runup to World War II. Many modern avionics have their origins in World War II wartime developments. For example, autopilot systems that are commonplace today began as specialized systems to help bomber planes fly steadily enough to hit precision targets from high altitudes. Britain's 1940 decision to share its radar technology with its U.S. ally, particularly the magnetron vacuum tube, in the famous Tizard Mission, significantly shortened the war. Modern avionics is a substantial portion of military aircraft spending. Aircraft like the F-15E and the now retired F-14 have roughly 20 percent of their budget spent on avionics. Most modern helicopters now have budget splits of 60/40 in favour of avionics.

The civilian market has also seen a growth in cost of avionics. Flight control systems (fly-by-wire) and new navigation needs brought on by tighter airspaces, have pushed up development costs. The major change has been the recent boom in consumer flying. As more people begin to use planes as their primary method of transportation, more elaborate methods of controlling aircraft safely in these high restrictive airspaces have been invented.

Modern avionics
Avionics plays a heavy role in modernization initiatives like the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Next Generation Air Transportation System project in the United States and the Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) initiative in Europe. The Joint Planning and Development Office put forth a roadmap for avionics in six areas:
 * Published Routes and Procedures – Improved navigation and routing
 * Negotiated Trajectories – Adding data communications to create preferred routes dynamically
 * Delegated Separation – Enhanced situational awareness in the air and on the ground
 * LowVisibility/CeilingApproach/Departure – Allowing operations with weather constraints with less ground infrastructure
 * Surface Operations – To increase safety in approach and departure
 * ATM Efficiencies – Improving the air traffic management (ATM) process

Market
The Aircraft Electronics Association reports $1.73 billion avionics sales for the first three quarters of 2017 in business and general aviation, a 4.1% yearly improvement: 73.5% came from North America, forward-fit represented 42.3% while 57.7% were retrofits as the U.S. deadline of January 1, 2020 for mandatory ADS-B out approach.

Aircraft avionics
The cockpit or, in larger aircraft, under the cockpit of an aircraft or in a movable nosecone, is a typical location for avionic bay equipment, including control, monitoring, communication, navigation, weather, and anti-collision systems. The majority of aircraft power their avionics using 14- or 28‑volt DC electrical systems; however, larger, more sophisticated aircraft (such as airliners or military combat aircraft) have AC systems operating at 115 volts 400 Hz, AC. There are several major vendors of flight avionics, including The Boeing Company, Panasonic Avionics Corporation, Honeywell (which now owns Bendix/King), Universal Avionics Systems Corporation, Rockwell Collins (now Collins Aerospace), Thales Group, GE Aviation Systems, Garmin, Raytheon, Parker Hannifin, UTC Aerospace Systems (now Collins Aerospace), Selex ES (now Leonardo), Shadin Avionics, and Avidyne Corporation.

International standards for avionics equipment are prepared by the Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee (AEEC) and published by ARINC.

Communications
Communications connect the flight deck to the ground and the flight deck to the passengers. On‑board communications are provided by public-address systems and aircraft intercoms.

The VHF aviation communication system works on the airband of 118.000 MHz to 136.975 MHz. Each channel is spaced from the adjacent ones by 8.33 kHz in Europe, 25 kHz elsewhere. VHF is also used for line of sight communication such as aircraft-to-aircraft and aircraft-to-ATC. Amplitude modulation (AM) is used, and the conversation is performed in simplex mode. Aircraft communication can also take place using HF (especially for trans-oceanic flights) or satellite communication.

Navigation
Air navigation is the determination of position and direction on or above the surface of the Earth. Avionics can use satellite navigation systems (such as GPS and WAAS), inertial navigation system (INS), ground-based radio navigation systems (such as VOR or LORAN), or any combination thereof. Some navigation systems such as GPS calculate the position automatically and display it to the flight crew on moving map displays. Older ground-based Navigation systems such as VOR or LORAN requires a pilot or navigator to plot the intersection of signals on a paper map to determine an aircraft's location; modern systems calculate the position automatically and display it to the flight crew on moving map displays.

Monitoring

The first hints of glass cockpits emerged in the 1970s when flight-worthy cathode ray tube (CRT) screens began to replace electromechanical displays, gauges and instruments. A "glass" cockpit refers to the use of computer monitors instead of gauges and other analog displays. Aircraft were getting progressively more displays, dials and information dashboards that eventually competed for space and pilot attention. In the 1970s, the average aircraft had more than 100 cockpit instruments and controls. Glass cockpits started to come into being with the Gulfstream G‑IV private jet in 1985. One of the key challenges in glass cockpits is to balance how much control is automated and how much the pilot should do manually. Generally they try to automate flight operations while keeping the pilot constantly informed.

Aircraft flight-control system
Aircraft have means of automatically controlling flight. Autopilot was first invented by Lawrence Sperry during World War I to fly bomber planes steady enough to hit accurate targets from 25,000 feet. When it was first adopted by the U.S. military, a Honeywell engineer sat in the back seat with bolt cutters to disconnect the autopilot in case of emergency. Nowadays most commercial planes are equipped with aircraft flight control systems in order to reduce pilot error and workload at landing or takeoff.

The first simple commercial auto-pilots were used to control heading and altitude and had limited authority on things like thrust and flight control surfaces. In helicopters, auto-stabilization was used in a similar way. The first systems were electromechanical. The advent of fly-by-wire and electro-actuated flight surfaces (rather than the traditional hydraulic) has increased safety. As with displays and instruments, critical devices that were electro-mechanical had a finite life. With safety critical systems, the software is very strictly tested.

Fuel Systems
Fuel Quantity Indication System (FQIS) monitors the amount of fuel aboard. Using various sensors, such as capacitance tubes, temperature sensors, densitometers & level sensors, the FQIS computer calculates the mass of fuel remaining on board.

Fuel Control and Monitoring System (FCMS) reports fuel remaining on board in a similar manner, but, by controlling pumps & valves, also manages fuel transfers around various tanks.

 * Refuelling control to upload to a certain total mass of fuel and distribute it automatically.
 * Transfers during flight to the tanks that feed the engines. E.G. from fuselage to wing tanks
 * Centre of gravity control transfers from the tail (trim) tanks forward to the wings as fuel is expended
 * Maintaining fuel in the wing tips (to alleviate wing bending due to lift in flight) & transferring to the main tanks after landing
 * Controlling fuel jettison during an emergency to reduce the aircraft weight.

Collision-avoidance systems
To supplement air traffic control, most large transport aircraft and many smaller ones use a traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS), which can detect the location of nearby aircraft, and provide instructions for avoiding a midair collision. Smaller aircraft may use simpler traffic alerting systems such as TPAS, which are passive (they do not actively interrogate the transponders of other aircraft) and do not provide advisories for conflict resolution.

To help avoid controlled flight into terrain (CFIT), aircraft use systems such as ground-proximity warning systems (GPWS), which use radar altimeters as a key element. One of the major weaknesses of GPWS is the lack of "look-ahead" information, because it only provides altitude above terrain "look-down". In order to overcome this weakness, modern aircraft use a terrain awareness warning system (TAWS).

Flight recorders
Commercial aircraft cockpit data recorders, commonly known as "black boxes", store flight information and audio from the cockpit. They are often recovered from an aircraft after a crash to determine control settings and other parameters during the incident.

Weather systems
Weather systems such as weather radar (typically Arinc 708 on commercial aircraft) and lightning detectors are important for aircraft flying at night or in instrument meteorological conditions, where it is not possible for pilots to see the weather ahead. Heavy precipitation (as sensed by radar) or severe turbulence (as sensed by lightning activity) are both indications of strong convective activity and severe turbulence, and weather systems allow pilots to deviate around these areas.

Lightning detectors like the Stormscope or Strikefinder have become inexpensive enough that they are practical for light aircraft. In addition to radar and lightning detection, observations and extended radar pictures (such as NEXRAD) are now available through satellite data connections, allowing pilots to see weather conditions far beyond the range of their own in-flight systems. Modern displays allow weather information to be integrated with moving maps, terrain, and traffic onto a single screen, greatly simplifying navigation.

Modern weather systems also include wind shear and turbulence detection and terrain and traffic warning systems. In‑plane weather avionics are especially popular in Africa, India, and other countries where air-travel is a growing market, but ground support is not as well developed.

Aircraft management systems
There has been a progression towards centralized control of the multiple complex systems fitted to aircraft, including engine monitoring and management. Health and usage monitoring systems (HUMS) are integrated with aircraft management computers to give maintainers early warnings of parts that will need replacement.

The integrated modular avionics concept proposes an integrated architecture with application software portable across an assembly of common hardware modules. It has been used in fourth generation jet fighters and the latest generation of airliners.

Mission or tactical avionics
Military aircraft have been designed either to deliver a weapon or to be the eyes and ears of other weapon systems. The vast array of sensors available to the military is used for whatever tactical means required. As with aircraft management, the bigger sensor platforms (like the E‑3D, JSTARS, ASTOR, Nimrod MRA4, Merlin HM Mk 1) have mission-management computers.

Police and EMS aircraft also carry sophisticated tactical sensors.

Military communications
While aircraft communications provide the backbone for safe flight, the tactical systems are designed to withstand the rigors of the battle field. UHF, VHF Tactical (30–88 MHz) and SatCom systems combined with ECCM methods, and cryptography secure the communications. Data links such as Link 11, 16, 22 and BOWMAN, JTRS and even TETRA provide the means of transmitting data (such as images, targeting information etc.).

Radar
Airborne radar was one of the first tactical sensors. The benefit of altitude providing range has meant a significant focus on airborne radar technologies. Radars include airborne early warning (AEW), anti-submarine warfare (ASW), and even weather radar (Arinc 708) and ground tracking/proximity radar.

The military uses radar in fast jets to help pilots fly at low levels. While the civil market has had weather radar for a while, there are strict rules about using it to navigate the aircraft.

Sonar
Dipping sonar fitted to a range of military helicopters allows the helicopter to protect shipping assets from submarines or surface threats. Maritime support aircraft can drop active and passive sonar devices (sonobuoys) and these are also used to determine the location of enemy submarines.

Electro-optics
Electro-optic systems include devices such as the head-up display (HUD), forward looking infrared (FLIR), infrared search and track and other passive infrared devices (Passive infrared sensor). These are all used to provide imagery and information to the flight crew. This imagery is used for everything from search and rescue to navigational aids and target acquisition.

ESM/DAS
Electronic support measures and defensive aids systems are used extensively to gather information about threats or possible threats. They can be used to launch devices (in some cases automatically) to counter direct threats against the aircraft. They are also used to determine the state of a threat and identify it.

Aircraft networks
The avionics systems in military, commercial and advanced models of civilian aircraft are interconnected using an avionics databus. Common avionics databus protocols, with their primary application, include:
 * Aircraft Data Network (ADN): Ethernet derivative for Commercial Aircraft
 * Avionics Full-Duplex Switched Ethernet (AFDX): Specific implementation of ARINC 664 (ADN) for Commercial Aircraft
 * ARINC 429: Generic Medium-Speed Data Sharing for Private and Commercial Aircraft
 * ARINC 664: See ADN above
 * ARINC 629: Commercial Aircraft (Boeing 777)
 * ARINC 708: Weather Radar for Commercial Aircraft
 * ARINC 717: Flight Data Recorder for Commercial Aircraft
 * ARINC 825: CAN bus for commercial aircraft (for example Boeing 787 and Airbus A350)
 * Commercial Standard Digital Bus
 * IEEE 1394b: Military Aircraft
 * MIL-STD-1553: Military Aircraft
 * MIL-STD-1760: Military Aircraft
 * TTP – Time-Triggered Protocol: Boeing 787, Airbus A380, Fly-By-Wire Actuation Platforms from Parker Aerospace

title: Avionics