Talk:Climate Change Coalition

No preferences?!

According to Arthur Chesterfield-Evans[2] the "Gang of 21" didn't allocate preferences in the NSW election - not to the Greens, not to the Australian Democrats, not to anyone. if this is true, it's extremely damaging to the cause they claim to support. --Chriswaterguy talk 04:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Not if the tactic successfully got them a quota. It didn't of course. matturn 12:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It is true that the CCC did not allocate preferences to any other party. Withholding preferences made the CCC look hypocritical. The only way they could have defended such a decision was if all the other parties were pretty much equally bad on environmental issues. This off course was not the case - The Greens environmental platform being far superior to that of Liberal and Labor. The CCC chose to act as spoilers, and potentially could have cost The Greens a seat. To act in this way was not justifiable. Mrodowicz 11:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

SENATE 2007 PREFERENCES EXPLAINED The Climate Change Coalition is very actively campaigning throughout Australia and has formed a coalition of people from all walks of life, whose skills best represent what is needed to work with big business and community so that major changes can be fast-tracked. Much can be done with business on side, next to nothing without it.

The allocation of preferences was determined to give the highest likelihood of getting elected to make a difference in the fight for climate change reforms. The Democrats, who the ACF recognise as having very good climate change policies, were given first preference whilst the Liberal and Labor Parties (who the ACF scored poorly on climate change) were placed last. Those Parties that were thought to preference Parties with anti-environmental and global warming denying candidates were preferenced lower.

The Climate Change Coalition has been criticized by all sides of politics including those fighting climate change. However, the party believes that we need to rise above traditional political and ideological allegiances if we are to are to be successful in fighting climate change.

The Party believes that it offers an alternative to parties that traditionally have been considered to be environmentally focused and is determined to work with government and business at all levels, without getting distracted by social agendas that reduce the focus on the most important issue of our time - CLIMATE CHANGE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wardens (talk • contribs) 03:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007 preferences

Which way are the CCC preferencs really going? The Age suggests the CCC preferences will go to The Greens. The Daily Telegraph today suggests CCC preferences will benefit Pauline Hanson. A different Age article gives the impression that CCC first preferences will go to The Democrats. Is there any reliable information about CCC preferences?--Lester 22:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The Senate Preferences are online at the AEC Website. It seems to vary a lot by state, with the Democrats getting the bulk of the preferences, and the Greens never being too far out. I think the impression in the article of an anti-Greens bias is a little overstated; it would be nice to know which denialist groups are being preferenced ahead of Greens. (I haven't looked at every state, and I don't know all the candidates in any case, so there many be some, but a citation would be good.) 24.59.98.91 15:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The Fishing Party in NSW. Chrismaltby 12:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There's probably scope for a page on the Australian Senate Group Voting Ticket system, which could help reduce a lot of the confusion that persists about preference deals. Every election there's a scandal involving one or more parties, and a few voices talking about reform. The main advantage of the system is that it avoids the problem encountered in (I think) the 1987 election when over 15% of the votes cast in the NSW senate were informal due to numbering errors - it was alleged that the registration of so many candidates was a deliberate anti-Labor tactic. The main disadvantage is that it enourages parties and candidates with inflated expectations of their chances of success to do deals which they anticipate will advantage their own chances of election but instead end up electing people their voter base would largely find repugnant. Chrismaltby 12:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The ABC's Anthony Green has thoughtfully provided an easy to understand Senate Group Voting Ticket Guide for each party's above the line votes. Albatross2147 08:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

NSW State Election

Can any one explain what these sentences are meant to be conveying:

This is thought to relate to the fact that there was no party name on the head of the ballot. Of the 21,832 votes held by Newell, 79% had no further usable preferences and exhausted when she was excluded from the count. For comparison, the vote difference between the last candidate elected (Khan, Liberal) and the last candidate excluded (Chesterfield-Evans, Democrats) was a slightly larger 28,123 votes.

I would rewrite the first sentence as The party's vote was probably reduced to an extent by the fact that no party name was at the head of the ballot paper. The rest of the section is gibberish so far as I can tell. Albatross2147 08:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Albatross We agreed with your thoughts and have adjusted the information accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.59.39 (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

POV

OK this article is just blatantly non-neutral with content like:

The Climate Change Coalition is a coalition of people from all walks of life, whose skills best represent what the Party feels is needed to work with big business so that major changes can be fast-tracked. The Party believes much can be done with business on side, and next to nothing without it.

and:

In the ACT, Michael Fullam-Stone is the last candidate representative for the Senate. Michael has extensive background in built facilities and environment provision, conservation and operations management, economics and engineering involved energy management, strategies and economics.

I haven't removed anything at this stage, rather I've only tagged it {{POV}}. Xdenizen 22:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been removing this stuff, but Wardens who may have been a Senate candidate for the party keeps putting it back. Chrismaltby 02:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

OK so listing information on Wikipedia from the CCC's own website both in the Parties aims and Senate Candidates background information is considered to be non-neutral according to you Xdenizen. While you have flagged what you thought to be non-neutral, you have not made any suggestions as to what you would find to be a neutral edit. Can you then suggest what supporters of the CCC and the Senate Candidate Gary Warden, are supposed to put onto the CCC Wikipedia site? When we have tried to write down the background of all the Senate Candidates (as you have highlighted above), there has been a one line mention of the persons name, reverted by a confirmed member from the Greens - Chrismaltby. Chrismaltby also continues to revert comments onto this page in reference to Pauline Hanson and Family First Party. While Chrismaltby is posting this information as fact it is clearly a rouse designed to make it look like his point of view is presented fairly, but the very selection (and omission) of facts shows he biased agenda. When I have posted neutral content about all the whole preferencing decisions made by the Party and tried to reason with him through our talk page, Chrismaltby has continued to engage in edit warring. Chrismaltby is quoted as writing on our talk page "Regarding my supposed bias, I won't shrink from it, but at least I am prepared to be open about it. Some people can't see past the label and refuse to engage with the issues." Quite frankly he is admitting he is biased and that his agenda is to not work in the neutral point of view but continue to push his own issues. Once again Xdenizen, I am curious as to why you find the content to be non-neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wardens (talk • contribs) 03:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I think you are Gary Wardens or a supporter of his and the CCC. Probably you shouldn't edit this page at all. The edits you've made so far are very pro-CCC and this is not acceptable under the terms of Neutral Point of View. As far as I can see the edits made by Chris Maltby are generally neutral and, what's more referenced. Chris Maltby, it should be noted, declares his membership of the Greens on his user page. You should do the same.

If you and Chris are having a dispute, then take it up with him. Remember to be civil in your dealings with him. Xdenizen 04:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No I am not Gary Warden, but yes I am related to him. No I am not a member of the CCC, but yes I do support their cause. I have as much right to add to this page as Chris. You missed the point that Chris in his own words admits to being biased, and you haven't made any suggestions as to what you would find to be a neutral edit. Wikipedia states that you must "clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article." I have once again made what I believe to be a neutral edit regarding preferences, which is fully supported by data from the ABC website. I have also reincluded a short version of the Candidates Bios, however I would be more than happy to follow the examples of other Parties and create dedicated Wikipedia entries for each candidate, which are linked from the CCC Wikipedia entry. I have tried on several occasions to take it up with Chris, but he seems to want to ignore what I've said, and revert back to his biased views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wardens (talk • contribs) 05:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I first tagged but did not revert this page because I suspected something like this might happen. I'm going to assume good faith here but I really think you need to stop reverting this page for the moment. Give your obvious association with Wargen and the CCC it's easy for you to be accused of pushing a particular point of view rather than observing the idea of neutrality.

Not just that but you may well run afoul of the three revert rule and end up in strife for edit warring. There has to be a way to resolve this without people getting into a cat fight and attracting the baleful gaze of an Administrator. Any ideas? Xdenizen 05:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, in good faith, I made the a neutral edit that you have just reverted, as a way of resolving this issue.

The edit under preferences I posted was "During the 2007 Federal Election, the CCC preferenced the Australian Democrats second and third in all States. The Greens were preferenced ahead of the Liberal and Labor Parties in all States. In all states, except Western Australia, CCC preferences flowed to the Australian Greens, and helped the Australian Greens Candidate Sarah Hanson-Young to be elected in South Australia. The flow of preferences in WA had no impact on the ultimate election of Scott Ludlum from the Greens to the final Senate position in that State." This I feel is a very neutral explanation of the Preference decisions by the Party, and in the case of Chris's leanings, very supportive of the Greens. Also, you have still not mentioned why you found the bios of the Candidates to be non-neutral.

I'm not sure what you are getting at when you say there must be a way of resolving this. Are you asking me to leave the biased edit made by Chris (that pushes Chris and the Greens particular point of view on a site not related to them) in place as a way of resolving this? Maybe we need the baleful gaze of an Administrator to look into this, because I can't seem to understand how you are suggesting we resolve this issue.

Ja, that might be helpful. Would you like to contact one to review the matter? Xdenizen 06:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, can you give me suggestions how to go about this? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.15.106 (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok Wardens. First - bias. Everyone brings a bias to their writings, it's part of being human. The trick is to consciously try to see the world from the perspective of others, and to be honest about influences on one's point of view that others might interpret as bias. I try to do both, which is why I declare my involvement in the Greens. It seems that many people shut their own minds when they see this and pontificate about my prejudices. Still, I have a fairly thick skin.

Second - the CCC candidates are probably very interesting people to meet, but as none of them were successful their background is essentially irrelevent to the CCC wikipedia page. What light does it shed on the party or its motivations that isn't either obvious or trivial or both? Of course, during the election period, the bio information could be viewed to be political advertising. You need to make a case for the special importance of these people for their information to remain here. If they're not interesting enough to rate their own wikipedia biographical page, what value does their bio information add to a neutral understanding of the CCC and its purpose?

Third - the information about CCC preferences is important. It was discussed in the media and was an issue with voters in the election. Post-hoc justification of the decision is clearly non-neutral. I would have no objection to a statement of the facts alone. If you want to add explanatory comments, you have to allow for balancing comments from other points of view. All such commentary has to meet the wikipedia requirements for relevance and be properly cited. The idea is that someone who knows nothing about CCC will be able to come to understand the issue and its importance and have a reasonable chance of drawing a balance conclusion on it.

Fourth - this page (not site) doesn't belong to CCC - it's purpose is not to promote the party or its policies. It exists because the party's existence is a fact which needs some explanation. The same applies to the Greens, ALP etc. The idea is to engage with others with different perspectives to come to a shared understanding of the importance of the page's topic, and provide information of relevance to that understanding. You keep acting as if the page is a billboard for the CCC, and you refuse to engage in the debate about neutrality. It's not just me that raises the problem - but I cop the criticism because of my supposed "bias".

As a way forward, why not try some alternative wordings which contain verifiable facts only, but which you feel remove the unfair bias you complain of. Avoid justifications (and cliches) like the plague. Chrismaltby (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Chris – I am sorry to hear that you feel you’re being criticised, but I too feel the same as you, so please accept my commiserations. I would also like to reassure Xdenizen that I have tried on every occasion to be civil in my dealings with you. In response to your recent edit;

Firstly, I appreciate that you have prejudices and have been upfront in your declaration of your prejudices, but if acknowledged bias writings had been minor then I wouldn’t have felt it necessary to write any edits on the CCC page. Quite frankly, I find it hard to understand why you have so vigorously pursued such minor editing attempts.

Secondly, the Candidates for the CCC are as interesting and relevant as the unsuccessful Greens candidates whose bios are displayed on the Greens site. Therefore I can’t see the logic in that argument.

Thirdly, the edit I made about the CCC preferences, was entirely editorial and based on facts. Point in fact, I have tried on three occasions now to write an edit that is neutral. You continue to write “Pauline Hanson and the conservative Family First Party were among those groups with whom the CCC arranged preference deals.”, which I feel is inaccurate in all but the WA preference deals. Gary Warden has indicated that this was an agreed to deal with the WA Greens. In any event, the law dictates that all political parties are given a preference placing. This means that preferencing ordering is done not because of similar ideologies, but in order to ensure the best outcome for winning. Your edit leaves out all of the information publicly reported on the AEC, and it gives the reader the impression that CCC preferences favoured right wing parties. I personally believe that reporting information while omitting all of the relevant information can seem to be an attempt at defamation. I also personally believe that if Wikipeadia is to continue to allow people to do this type of partial reporting of the facts towards rival political parties, then it may open them up to defamation proceedings.

Fourthly, Yes this is a public site, and I have written my edits based on editing I have observed from the Greens page. If you don’t feel my writing is neutral, I am sorry but I think it is similar to the Greens edits. I have on several occasions tried to talk to you about the neutrality of your edits, but you admitted your biased in these talks, and left it at that. When you write that it is not just you that raises the problem, the person who did raise the problem again did not provide any sort of advice as to what would be a neutral edit. I have offered several alternatively worded edits on the CCC’s preferences as a way forward, but each time you have reverted the page without any advice as to why you found the edit not acceptable. As to the question of why both you and Xdenizen found the bios of the Candidates to be non-neutral, I still haven’t received any reasoning on this.

Finally, I will revert the bios as I previously wrote them and instead of alternative wording on the CCC’s preferences, I will write a shortened version of the preference deals so that people can see for themselves what the orders were, along with a sourcing reference for them.

For your information Chris, here is a shortened version of the preference deals as sourced from Australia Votes:

QLD

Climate Change Coalition (1st-2nd); Democrats (3rd); (Greens 4th); (Pauline Hanson 5th); ALP (6th); Family First (7th); One Nation (40th)

NSW

Climate Change Coalition (1st-2nd); Australian Democrats (3rd - 5th); What Women Want (6th - 7th); Fishing Party (8th-9th); Careers Alliance (10th - 11th); Independent (12th); Greens (13th-18th); Family First (29th-30th); Pauline Hanson (31st-32nd); One Nation (33rd-36th)

VIC

Climate Change Coalition (1st-2nd); Australian Democrats (3rd); ALP (4th); Greens (5th); Family First (6th); One Nation (46th)

SA

Climate Change Coalition (1st-2nd); Greens (3rd-4th); Australian Democrats (6th-8th); What Women Want (9th-10th); One Nation (33rd -34th); Family First (37th-39th)

WA (Ticket 1)

Climate Change Coalition (1st-2nd); What Women Want (3rd-4th); Australian Democrats (5th-7th); Conservatives for Climate (8th-9th); Family First (10th-12th); One Nation (31st -32nd); Greens (39th-41st); Liberal (46th-51st); ALP (52st-54th)

WA (Ticket 2)

Climate Change Coalition (1st-2nd); What Women Want (3rd-4th); Australian Democrats (5th-7th); Conservatives for Climate (8th-9th); Family First (10th-12th); One Nation (31st -32nd); Greens (39th-41st); ALP (46th-48th); Liberal (50th-54th)

Wardens, you're still ignoring the issue. There are no bios of unsuccessful Greens candidates on Wikipedia - unless they are otherwise noteworthy. Being a candidate for election to public office does not, of itself, make a person noteworthy. You keep adding a sentence that says "CCC has members from all walks of life". Besides being horribly cliched, it's guaranteed to be factually untrue. What about "diverse backgrounds". The stuff about working with business needs to be stated neutrally - "the party distinguishes itself from others by its pro-business stance". The details of the senate preference flows are fine in the talk page, but they essentially illustrate that the CCC does preference deals in an attempt to secure election. This is not noteworththy. What is noteworthy is the willingness to preference parties with antithetical policy ahead of those with similar policy. The fact that the decision to do so was reported in the national media is a clue as to weight an editor might choose to give to the preferences story. You quote the Greens "site" as a model for your editorial style, do you mean Australian Greens, the wikipedia entry, or Australian Greens], the Greens website? If you do understand the difference between these two sources, can you quote an example on the former that you think is equivalent to your work here? Finally, you assert that the WA Greens "agreed" to the CCC preference ticket in WA. While this is an interesting assertion it suffers from being both unverified and irrelevant, even if we are to accept it at face value, which I do not. Whatever, it needs a reference to an authoritative source if it is to be included here - your discussions with your relation don't count - at best they are Original Research. Chrismaltby (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC) (edit typo Chrismaltby (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC))

Chris, all candidates prepared to stand up for election for any Party are noteworthy, and regardless of that, various CCC candidates have been mentioned on the internet and in news media items. In some media articles, the Party is referred to as a whole, therefore, any candidates put forward by that Party become noteworthy by way of interrelatedness. Besides, the brief mention of their backgrounds is hardly a matter for non neutrality. While all the candidates have differing backgrounds in experience, they do by their very background literally come from different walks of life. But I have noted your concerns and decided to leave the briefing of their names as you have it currently in order to move forward.

I will again reiterate that placing candidates in a preference order, does not imply that deals were done.

You are correct about the truthful agreement done with the WA Greens as not being able to be verified, other than coming down to Original Research, so I will remove this statement. As you didn’t seem to have a problem with a condensed version of the listing of the preferential places, I will re-insert them for the benefit of the viewing public, seeing how they are relevant and verified.

As for the Greens site, yes I am aware of the difference between the Greens website and the Greens page on Wikipedia. I was referring to the latter. As an example of statement with questionable neutrality from the Greens Wikipedia page, I offer the following, “The Greens have differentiated themselves from the major parties in a number of high-profile policy positions. By taking a strong public stand on issues such international politics and the treatment of asylum seekers, for example, they claim to have shaken off their reputation as a single issue party concerned solely with environment: ecology embraces the human as well as the natural, and so human rights, fair processes and peace are integral to Green practice”. While this statement may be true, it is written in such a way as to positively reflect on the Greens. I don’t believe that any of the statements that I’ve written are any less neutral than this.

We are always going to have problems with this shower. The article was spam from the get go given the original author was one of the Adams family. Eventually they will appreciate their irrelevancy and go away. E.I. Addio (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My, my, my, so much feeling in that statement. I'm so sorry you felt compelled to write such a nasty comment. Good luck to you, sweetie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wardens (talk • contribs) 14:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that EI's point is valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.11.33.23 (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

References

This article is improving.

Wardens,

I've removed this section:

The Climate Change Coalition is a coalition of people from different walks of life, whose skills best represent what the Party feels is needed to work with big business so that major changes can be fast-tracked. The Party believes much can be done with business on side, and next to nothing without it.

because I think it's non-neutral. That said the rest of this article is beginning to look OK. If you agree with my edit here, I think we could remove the NPOV tag. Xdenizen (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Xdenizen. I have taken on board your advice on this part of the articles neutrality and will bow to your better judgement. Thank you for your guidance.Wardens (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well why did you add it back again? Chrismaltby (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake - you didn't add that bit back, but you have added errors ("all states", not "all states except tasmania"), too much irrelevant detail (the preference lists which can be referenced on the AEC website), and the misleading fluff about the election of Scott Ludlum (basically, CCC preferred the CDP candidate to the Green, even though the CDP have no policy on Climate Change). Fortunatly the CCC vote was so trivial (especially in WA) that it was irrelevent to the result. Chrismaltby (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Boldness

In line with WP:Bold I'm gonna nix the {{NPOV}} I placed on this article last year. Xdenizen (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 20 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jack Frost (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

---

4Change → Climate Change Coalition – Spent over three years and several elections as the Climate Change Coalition, changed its name barely three months before its deregistration and never contested an election as "4Change". Frickeg (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.