Talk:Australian Greens/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Leader

Hmm i thought Bob Brown was the leader of the Greens in Australia. Seeing there is an election on I could be wrong, but i would also like to be sure that wikipedia does not contain any errors because of the upcoming election. I would sincerely appreciate it if someone could research this, i am currently a bit busy. Thanks 61.68.57.29 11:23, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Greens do not have a leader, but he is generally considered to be the de facto leader by the media and political analysts. - Aaron Hill 11:26, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

political ideology

im just wondering. under political ideology it says green politics. i would suggest that it should say green politics / left wing (or something to that effect). as an example, the liberal page says conservative / neo-liberal. Xtra 10:53, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nah, green politics pretty much nails it, whereas the Liberals are neither totally conservative or totally neo-liberal. - Aaron Hill 11:31, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Greens policy cannot completely be defined as environmental. It is heavily socialist and generally socially radical as well. liberals for forests is an example of a green libertarian party. They do not preference the Greens highly because they disagree massively on non-environmental issues. Being "green" does not fully describe the Greens. matturn 12:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Liberals for forests has a chequered history. It started in WA and took votes from the Liberals due to Liberal policy being to continue with destructive logging/woochipping practices. In 2004 in NSW the party was hijacked by Glen Druery(?) - a political operator who attempts to get elected by micropreference flow tactics. He did not succeed, but he DID direct Senate preferences away from the Greens to right wing parties. Peter Campbell 03:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The Greens political platform has recently been selectively represented by some sections of the media (most notably the Murdoch press), the Coalition (e.g. Howard, Anderson, Brandis etc) as "extreme left wing" etc. But Lindsay Tanner (ALP) has as well. Why does negative other party POV feature so prominently in this section?

And why are only the "controversial" policies stated from a very long list?

While some of the Greens are "disliked by many in the Labor party and the trade unions" there are many Greens who are very active and even employed by several influential trade unions - this is not mentioned. Nor is Dean Mighell's much publicised "defection" to the Greens (he subsequently returned to the ALP).

Many Greens have joined the party from the ALP after becoming dissaffected with ALP policies on environment, and more recently on asylum seekers. Some Greens have joined from the Liberals for similar reasons too. No mention of these trends either. Peter Campbell 12:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Neither the ALP or Liberal Party articles have a section on "ideology", and neither contain significant "criticism or comment or other party's POV" on them. So why does this article on the Australian Greens differ in this regard? Peter Campbell 22:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the idealogy section was drifting into other party POV of the Greens so I have shifted it under as subheading, and moved the Greens-Democrat rivalry section under it. I have also added information about links and relations with environmental organisations. Peter Campbell 13:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The ALP and Liberal articles aren't necessarily perfect, and I think an ideology section in this article is entirely justified. That said, you're entirely right in that no other party has this amount of crap about what everyone else thinks about them, as to what they actually are. Ambi 13:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should expect this article to be entirely parallel to the ALP/Liberal articles in that regard. IMHO, it's a fact of life that "other parties' POV" matters more to minor parties such as the Greens than it does to the ALP and Coalition. For them, being able to win allies and cut deals is important; for us, it's essential. A better comparison might be Family First Party; while they don't have a specific section on their relationships with other parties, there is quite a bit throughout the article, in particular here. I do agree with separating 'relationships' section off from party ideology, though - if anything, it probably ought to be moved a little further away. --Calair 23:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There's a key difference there. A "relationships" section in the context of their ability to do preference deals with other parties would make a lot of sense. That's not what we have at the moment - far too much of this article is still about the opinions of every other party but themselves. Ambi 00:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

This would certainly be an improvement. I think those opinions are a significant element of the relationships (and one of the most visible elements, which is probably why they're so prominent here) but ideally that would just be part of a broader section. --Calair 04:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It's happening again - only this time the assertion is that other parties supposed embrace of environmentalism is either an attempt to render the Greens irrelevant, or is a result of the Greens having made themselves irrelevant by their own success in mainstreaming these issues. Both are specious arguments if you ask me, but whatever view you may take on it, it doesn't belong in a section on Greens ideology. Quoting press articles which make either of the above claims doesn't increase the relevance to this section. Chrismaltby 13:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Balances of power

... are tricky things. More to the point, anyone who isn't familiar with Australian politics already isn't going to know what the article's talking about if we mention it. I've edited the reference out, pending a separate article on the concept as understood in Aussie politics, which I really think we need but don't have time to come up with myself at the moment. JK 10:19, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Whoever added the "Howard government gaining power means Greens will have less influence" bit. I don't see the relevance at all, save heaping praises at the Coalition. Removed. 203.214.147.34 13:38, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And I've reverted. What the heck? If the Greens had the balance of power, they would have a huge amount of influence over legislation to be passed. As they do not, they now have practically none. It's not about heaping praise on the blasted Coalition, but a matter of a simple, unfortunate fact. Ambi 13:48, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let's look at this sentence: "In the 2004 Federal election the Greens' primary vote rose by around 2% (to an average of around 7%), giving them two additional seats in the Senate, but the success of the Howard government in winning a majority in the Senate, however, meant that the Greens' influence would decrease." How many commas there? Just throw in "however" for good measure, when you want to tack something on? That last snip is not necessary, and was placed on the end of the sentence recently. "What the heck" indeed. 203.214.146.4 05:15, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unless, you know, you want to add a snip about "[x] party will lose influence due to the Howard majority" to EVERY SINGLE party's page on Wikipedia. There's no mention of "balance of power" in this article anymore, and without a reference to it, I don't see the relevance of predictions like "[x] party's influence will decrease." That's not encyclopedia-worthy. 203.214.146.4 05:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

its not a prediction. its a fact. when one party (or a coalition of parties) gains an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in a house of parliament. oposition parties which would have otherwise held the balance of power and gained huge influence due to their individual good results no longer have any real effect and are in fact in a worse position than when they had less seats. Xtra 05:48, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC) Typical right wing bias.

Two edit wars in two days on Australian's political parties' pages and in this case I am again supposedly on the conservative side *sigh*. Any party who isnt the Liberal or Nationals power decreases in the event of the government seizing a Senate majority. Its a fact. If the government doesn't have to deal with you, you have little to no power. - Aaron Hill 06:17, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph on the 2004 election results to the Liberal Party article, naturally including reference to their Senate success. (I'm not quite sure what to do with the Nats or Labor, since their articles are shorter and don't leave an obvious spots for modern elections results to go; the ALP one in particular could use an expansion. Adding a ref in Mark Latham might work, though.) Since the other minor parties involved in the elections all either lost seats or only have one senator anyway, I don't really think it's necessary to bring up the other reasons for their lack of influence in the articles. If no-one objects, I think we can safely put back the reference to the balance of power here. (Oh, and just so we're clear: I'm a Dems supporter, and I have the same contempt for John Howard as any other latté leftie. It hurts to talk about these election results, but I think it needs to be done.) JK 06:54, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not leaving a horrid run-on sentence like that. It reads horribly, is an eyesore, and serves no purpose. Unless there's an equally poor sentence added to every other Australian party page, I'll keep removing it. I'm surprised to see so many prominent Australian Wikipedians defending such poor writing. The main Australian 2004 election article covers plenty of "the Greens didn't do as well as they'd hoped" tone, and I'll not have this page reading like a eulogy when the Greens increased their numbers in the Senate. Inter-party dynamics are for the main election article. So far as this article goes, they gained two Senate seats -- nearly three, had it not been for the Victoria preferences sham. 203.214.144.52 20:39, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Then reword the damned thing, not remove it. Please stop accusing us of being biased against the Greens - almost all of us are either Greens (as I am) or ALP voters. It should note just how much their vote increased, and how Siewert and Milne picked up seats despite the preferences sham - but it should also note that they had expected to do better (i.e. in seats such as Melbourne, and the Queensland Senate), and that their influence has now decreased, as a result of their support no longer being needed to pass legislation. Ambi 00:13, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, please! "most" people are greens or ALP voters? WTF? Most people here are arrogant ultra-wing wing conservatives, spouting narrow minded homophobic and racist (immigration) view points, and editing accordingly. It's not even safe to speak a foreign language in this ocuntry anymore for fear of being locked up in a concentration camp..oops, I meant detention centre. How could I possibly get those confused?

IMHO (and I'm a Greens member myself), the fact that we increased our seats is the reason *why* it should be included. When we note that the Democrats lost seats, it hardly needs saying that this weakens them. But if we note that the Greens won seats, the natural presumption is that they'd be more powerful in the Senate than they were last time around. This *isn't* the case, it's not obvious to a casual reader that it isn't the case, it has a lot of impact on the Greens' role in the Senate, and so it bears mentioning here. Even if it means a small amount of duplication. --Calair 00:23, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Ambi 06:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just for the record, the ALP offered to do a preference swap with the Greens in Tasmania, but the Greens were so confident of getting a quota in their own right that they declined. The ALP then did a deal with Family First instead. The ALP's view is that it is not their job to help get Greens Senators elected. The current Senate election system makes preference deals absolutely necessary to win the sixth spot, and the ALP did whatever deals seemed likely to maximise its own chances of doing so. The reason the Greens failed to win Senate seats in Victoria, Queensland and South Australia was not preference "shams" but their own failure to win enough votes. Adam 00:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is not the ALP's job to get Green Senators elected, but it also seems somewhat logical to preference someone who is likely to have similar views and vote with you, rather than someone who is likely to vote for the government. Preferencing Fielding over Risstrom was a disaster - rather than helping Collins hold her seat, he took it from her, and the ALP now has a right-wing nuisance in the Senate for the next eight years. So, at least in Victoria, if not a sham, it was one hell of a stuff-up. The ALP also should've known better than to preference Petrusma over Milne in any circumstances. It is madness for a left-wing party to be preferencing the far-right. Let us just hope the lesson has been learned for next time. Ambi 06:10, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm unsure that the Greens would receive Labor preferences in the future because one of Labor's biggest problems this time around was that it was seen as getting too cuddly with the Greens (re: Tasmanian forests especially). Conversely, Labor rather enjoyed its effective Senate majority on the matter of anything remotely progressive in a de facto ALP/Greens/Democrats voting bloc and such an arrangement will happen with Family First when hell freezes over. (Or when St Kilda wins the flag). - Aaron Hill 08:30, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

The ALP would be immensely foolish to hold that against the Greens. It was a risky policy (IMO a good one), but it should have been announced long before the election to give O'Byrne and Sidebottom time to rebuild bridges. Ambi 09:07, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Other parties' view of the Greens

Re: edits

Yes, this is POV - Family First's POV! Did you see the quantity of media releases? Did you read them? FF is a party that is publically priding itself in being the anti-Greens. Surely this has some relevence.matturn 13:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Point taken, but I still don't like repeating propoganda. Even the AEC agreed that Family First overstepped the mark on a number of occasions, with their anti-Green ads. 10:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC+9.5) Troyac

You make the situation sound even more worthy of mention! matturn 08:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just think it is worth noting that Both the Liberal and Labor party articles have links to websites critical of them and the Greens should be no different. Xtra 13:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I agree. I don't like Family First (I think they're mad) but you make a convincing point. Troyac 05:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, unless someone can give me a good reason why the Greens should be the only Australian party which doesnt allow critisism on its page I will put the link back up. N.B. the critisisms linked to the other pages are also from political opponents. Xtra 06:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Xtra, find a critical link that is not from Family First. I think a link by either the lib/lab party would be fine - it's just that FF are have pretty extreme views. For example, I don't think a critical link on the liberal party page from an organization like Resistance would be appropriate either. Jgritz 15:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've put http://www.australiangreenswatch.com page as a critical link. There's some interesting reading on here, and its a little more balanced and actually probably more damaging than the FF link. Xtra, I hope this resolves your concerns. Jgritz 15:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like the original Herald sun article if anyone could find it. Xtra 23:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hope you don't mean the article refered to here. Jgritz 14:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The article was substantially correct and the points raised by the press council were minor at best. Unfortunately, the article itself and the article which refutes the decission of the press council are both no longer available. However, if they were, I would put them in. Xtra 22:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you've just lost any claim of neutral intent, Xtra. Troyac 07:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me? I have been more than fair in suggesting that a newspaper article be put up inted of a political site. There are two important points you are missing. 1 The article refered to was in Australia's most popular newspaper and even after the investigation was still shown to be substantially correct. 2 Every major Australian political party has links on their page to websites not only from newspapers, but from other political parties, whose sole purpose is to discredit them. I resent any suggestion that I am not being neutral. I am being more fair to the greens than other editors are being to other political parties. Given the way you are just throwing around accusations, I may just re-insert the Family First link, as it is a relevant, b fully referenced, c far more tame than many other links that spout full on slander. If you intend to revert, please give a real reason here in the talk. Otherwise I will revert back as vandalism. Xtra 09:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

see [1], [2], [3] for just a few examples. Xtra 09:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whoops - I didn't realise that news articles judged "irresponsible journalism" and "seriously inaccurate" by an independent body, who then subsequently rejected an appeal are actually just the opposite. My mistake. I think you've got quite an agenda here - Your talk page says you're a fan of both the liberal party and the national party, and you've continually pushed to have a very right-wing link placed on this page. In fact you've placed it here 4 times now. I'm going to remove it and I think you should let someone else decide whether it is suitable. Jgritz 10:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I concur with the views of Jgritz that linking to an article that has been ruled as inappropriate by the press council would be irresponsible. The article was not shown as substantially correct (as per Xtra's comments above). To the contrary the Press Council [4] viewed the article as irresponsible journalism (seems to be very strong words), and stated the claims made in the original article were seriously inaccurate. The council upheld the complaint by Senator Bob Brown against The Herald Sun, Melbourne and dismnissed an appeal against the decision.--AYArktos 22:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My soccer coach once told me that if I want to be taken seriously I should tackle the ball not the man. You have not come within 20 metres of the ball. Please explain why a relevant and fully referenced link is not appropriate. For the matter links do not need to be NPOV anyway. I don't have an agenda other than making this into a acurate encyclopaedia. You on the other hand are refusing to give reasons for your actions. Who is the one with the agenda? As I said before DO NOT REVERT WITHOUT A GOOD REASON - ATTACKING MY CREDIBILITY IS NOT A GOOD REASON. Xtra 12:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It is my opinion that this link [5] should not feature. It is apparently not a party view of another party but an individual's view. Links to pages of other officially registered political parties and their views on a second party would probably be appopriate. This would include the Family First party link. I would be happy for this stance to apply to all articles on political parties in Australia.--AYArktos 22:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have added some Liberal and Democrat views from the 2004 election. Not sure quite frankly that they offer much insights - you need to go more between the lines. The broken record of the Prime Minister on the links between Labor and the Greens dowes not come through from one speech - it is when you realise he said it many many times through the elction and had nothing else to say that it becomes more interesting - the absence of any meaningful comment on Greens' policies is harder to depict. The weasling of the Democrats that they prefer the Greens to Pauline Hanson is well - what can one say but they are trying not to disenfranchise sympathisers - or that is how I read it. Could be fascinating but would veer into the realm of original research. In summary I found it hard to raise any other party's views of the Greens, certainly not in such categorical terms as Family First.--AYArktos 23:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps rather than relying on external links, we ought to bite the bullet and create a section on other parties' criticisms of the Greens? (Or more broadly, 'relations with other parties'?) Balancing for NPOV would be tricky, but we seem to be having that problem anyway, and it would allow us to cover some things that aren't well explained on any single site. Explaining the political relationships would also help put some of these criticisms in perspective - for instance, the fact that the Greens and Democrats are to some extent rivals for the same political niche colours interpretation of their criticisms of one another. Most of the links that have been posted here previously could be worked into such a section at appropriate points. --Calair 02:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Started a political ideology section - could do with some help though. There's definitely a lot of interesting stuff that could be written about the different parties dynamics, and it gives scope to add the more controversial links in context of the larger situation. Jgritz 09:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This artile is written shambolically. The final half may aswell be titled " Green whinge " or "Green sour grapes". This is not an encylopedic entry but a biased inhouse piece of self-adulation that reads appallingly . The stuff about the preference deal and the media deserves to be cut in tenth. Check out other political entries on wiki, this one is squirmish. Someone please make an attempt at fixing it ( I've tried on other Green entries but my changes are quickly reverted back within the hour, so I give up ).

Winning seats is important to any political party, and preferences are one of the biggest factors in the Greens' ability to win seats. This article would be deficient if it didn't discuss them at some length. --Calair 04:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Greens template

I'm going to pull the {{Greens}} template, simply because, while nice on its own, it looks ugly as hell stacked next to the Australian Politics template. (Other political templates are left out of the relevant party articles for the same reason.) J.K. 13:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

leader

may it be worth having bob brown listed as "unoficial leader" in the side-bar. Xtra 08:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

A footnote could be a good idea - as in List of political parties in Australia. Ambi 08:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

This might help sort the leader issue out - taken from http://wa.greens.org.au/about/faq

Q: Is Bob Brown the leader of the Greens?

No. Bob Brown is the Greens Senator for Tasmania. From 1998 to 2001 he was the only member of the Greens in federal parliament so he has naturally been the spokesperson for the Greens. He is labelled by the media as the "leader" of the Greens because all the other parties have leaders. Since Kerry Nettle was elected to federal Parliament as Senator for NSW in 2002, she is equally a spokesperson for the party.

The Greens don't have leaders. We have various people who do various jobs. In WA there are five Green MPs. None of the five is the "leader". Each is a spokesperson for various issues.

Jgritz 10:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

But Kerry Nettle is not equally a spokesperson, nor is any other Green. Yes, in theory, there is no leader, but in the public realm that is only one Greens member that has a role anything like that of offical leaders of the other major parties, and that is Bob Brown. Behind closed Green doors it may be a different story. In any case, some sort of connection between "Bob Brown" and "leader" is warranted. matturn 13:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is noted in the article. Xtra 13:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Xtra is right - read the footnote. Ambi 05:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The upcoming National Conference of the Australian Greens in Hobart next weekend will be dealing with this issue. There is a motion from the Senators to create the Leadership position. I don't think it's worthy of placing in the article, but worth noting that, while it is disputed about how this person will be elected, Bob Brown will certainly win any leadership contest at the moment, and by the next election the position will have been created. I also wanted to flag that I've fixed up references to the State Convenors on the state pages. While that's not on this page, I don't want to have to explain it 8 different times. The position of Convenor in the Greens, state, federal, and at every level, is an administrative position, similar to a party president, not like a leadership position, and it is misleading to describe it as such. Braue 02:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I have added information on the latest status of the leader. The 2005 National Conference approved the process, and the Greens Party Room has now used the process to elect Bob Brown as Parliamentary Party Leader. Peter Campbell 12:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Too much argument and self-justification in this article. The paragraph on the 2004 election, and the comparison of voting numbers, being a case in point. The same information can be presented without the tacit demonisation of political opponents or the appeal to the readers' sense of justice. Darcyj 16:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

'Watermelon' comments

The 'pink' bit of 'red and pink on the inside' may suggest socialism as a secondary meaning, but IME the primary implication has always been 'homosexual'. It's certainly what Fred Nile meant by the term - Family World News, which he edits, states: "The Green Party is also Pink, as it is the political wing of the Homosexual “Gay Liberation Movement” which is why it is promoting and supporting Homosexual legislation such as lowering the age of dissent, Homosexual spouses, etc." --Calair 00:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Too many pollies, not enough colours to pigeonhole them all with... J.K. 00:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that the quote was "red on the inside" (re: communist) not "red and pink" (communist and homosexual).? Xtra 01:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The "watermelon party, red on the inside" is an old line that's been used against green groups (and parties whose colours happen to be green) in several different countries.[6] But Fred Nile has been using the "red and pink" version specifically for the Australian Greens because of their pro-gay policies (and maybe for Bob Brown). Though I haven't seen it picked up by anybody other than Fred's supporters; might change the presentation to make that clearer. --Calair 02:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Complete re-write

I just re-wrote the article. I've tried to include everything that was included in the old article. Not perfect, but oh so much better than what was there before.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kieran Bennett (talk • contribs) 16:49, 15 December 2005 (ACST).

Nice work - one thing though, maybe a few less interwiki links. Jgritz 07:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

just killed some of the more pointless ones. Cheers.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kieran Bennett (talk • contribs) 17:04, 15 December 2005 (ACST).

Great work! It would be even better if you could convert all your inline references to footnotes. See Wikipedia:Footnotes. Also, please don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages.--cj | talk 08:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice rewrite. All gripes have been fixed, and it's a lot better for it.Methulah 00:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest?

Chris Maltby

Chris Maltby Chrismaltby by his own admission is the secretary of the Waverley Greens. Recent edits made by him have to been to remove content critical of the Greens. Suggest that this may present a conflict of interest. Marple123 10:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I freely admit my political interest in the page - and it would be interesting to know the background and ideology of people who feel that it's important to include "content critical of the Greens" which amounts to anonymous hatefilled scribblings as if it were somehow encyclopaedic. I deleted the links because they should not be left unsupported on the page as if they contributed to anyone's understanding of the Australian Greens. Chrismaltby 10:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I added only one anti-Green website: http://www.greenswatch.com. The second site http://www.stopthegreens.org.au/ was added by a different person (appears not to have an account). --Marple123 11:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Peter Campbell

Just a note to say that I believe Peter Campbell who's made a few edits, is an Australian Greens candidate. He's also conveniently made his own page - [7] - which is kind of vanity page, but may well be encyclopedic. Any ideas on what to do in a situation like this?? Jgritz 01:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There are many politically aligned people on Wikipedia. Many of whom edit articles which they are involved with the subject matter of. As long as Peter Campbell edits in an NPOV way, he should not be barred from editing any article. It also might be useful to point out our NPOV policy to him if he becomes too POV. Xtra 01:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd guess that most of the political content on Wikipedia is written by people with strong political views (me included :-) - we generally rely on the editing process to prevent bias, rather than people recusing themselves. But people are discouraged from writing articles about themselves, because it's very hard to keep those neutral (see Wikipedia:Autobiography) and hence, listing of Peter Campbell on VfD. --Calair 02:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not currently an Australian Greens candidate - but I have nominated for preselection at state level in Victoria again. I have been surprised by the amount of other party POV content in sections of this article, along with some important ommissions and some innaccuracies - which I have amended/corrected. I am not too familiar with the detailed Wikipedia processes yet, but I am learning. I don't like having "conflict of interest" levelled at me though. If this accusation stands I will refrain from any further edits. Peter Campbell 12:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Jgritz may have been suggesting that there could be a conflict of interest, but he does not represent Wikipedia policy. From what I know, Wikipedia values every editor, and acknowledges that everyone has their own views. Wikipedia just asks people to write in a way that represents a neutral point of view. So, instead of saying "Bill Gates sucks because he supports software patents only when it suits him", we say something along the lines of "Bill Gates has been widely criticised for his support of software patents. It is commonly claimed that Microsoft uses software patents as a way of stifling competition."

Please continue editing any article that interests you. I think it is Wikipedia policy to discourage you from editing your own (Peter Campbell) article, but even then, no one is out to stop you. - James Foster 13:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually, not even that's correct. "Bill Gates has been widely criticised for his support of software patents. It is commonly claimed that Microsoft uses software patents as a way of stifling competition" is an example of weasel words. Everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable and controversial statements, such as the above, would need references to a valid third-party source (as original research is prohibited). However, James' encouraging comments are true: it's great to see someone involved in Australian politics editing Wikipedia; I'd imagine you'd be quite knowledgeable in important areas (check out WikiProject Australian politics). Tangential to Peter's article, the recent Seigenthaler controversy inspired a few Wikipedians to formulate a new guideline directly relevant to this situation. --cj | talk 15:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

In asking this question I was just canvasing for opinion of what happens when someone closely involved with the topic starts editing. I've had 10 years involvement with the Greens myself, and I know my first edits here were all heavily POV. Peter's contributions are highly welcomed - I'm suppose I'm just playing devil's advocate to avoid any POV finger pointing further down the line. Thanks! --Jgritz 22:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Actually the best people to write the content of their own party is there members as they know exactly what the party stands for, and you cant make this page neutreal its about POLITICS and its never neutral. Enlil Ninlil 05:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably not possible to be perfectly neutral, but some pages are closer to neutral than others. Members of a party are in a great position to provide inside detail and fact-checking on some angles, but perhaps not so good at discussing the party's negatives - even with honest intentions, it's hard to argue against your own side. IMHO, the best people to write about a party are a mixture of its supporters and its opponents, plus a few unaligned... and a wiki is a reasonably good way to make that sort of collaboration work. --Calair 22:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Structure

The four Senators now have portfolios (e.g. Chrisine Milne has Greenhouse, Rachel Siewert has Industrial Relations), so the "elected spokesperson" roles are now less important at the national level.

I amended the information on the election of the Parliamentary Leader - which previously stated incorrectly that Bob Brown was elected as leader at the 2005 National Conference. Peter Campbell 12:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have just added details on the Greens Senator's new portfolios under "Structure". Peter Campbell 07:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice expansion. This article really does benefit from having a couple of people who actually know what they're talking about. Ambi 07:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Tanner quote

For instance, Lindsay Tanner (current Labor member for Melbourne, Victoria and a member of the Socialist Left faction) described Greens policies as "mad"

This references a website which is just quoting an article in the Australian ('Greens eye the balance of power', Australian, 1 September 2004). By the time it gets to this article we're left with a one-word quote and practically no context; it would be nice to know which Greens policies he's talking about, since I'll bet it's not all of them. Maybe somebody could dig up the original article and provide a bit more context? --Calair 01:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at The Australian article, I'm not sure that there was one. It looks more like an off-the-cuff quote to me. That said, I don't think this should be in the article anyway - there's still this over-obsession with what other people think of the Greens. Ambi 02:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Tanner leafletted his entire electorate (Melbourne) with information on "mad Greens policies". I will see if I can track down a copy of the leaflet and any references to it. Interestingly, the Liberals then lifted several of Tanner's anti-Green quotes onto their own "green coloured" leaflet which was selectively letter boxed in Kooyong and Chisholm, and mailed out by Lib Senator Judith Troeth at least to some people in Balwyn. Peter Campbell 05:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct Referencing

I noticed that of the references were mislinked. Firstly, the Article contains a reference 14 and 15, but these are not present in the list of reference links at the end. Secondly, reference 13, after the 'they have even been called fascists' sentence is actually a link to a press statement regarding the Herald Sun, and makes no mention of who called The Greens fascists, or to the comment ever being made. I can think of several people who would make a comment like that, but am very curious to find out who it was! :) I'm not sure what links references 13-15 are supposed to be to, is there someone who does, who could fix them up? Hegar 09:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The actual links seem to be OK, but not the numbers displaying on them. If I click on that '13' in the article, it takes me to reference #1, which is a Lateline article about Brandis' 'fascists' comment. Likewise, if I click on the '^' in the entry for reference #1, it takes me back to the section in the article discussing that remark.

The discrepancy between the total number of references within the article and at the end seems to be because three of them (numbered 9, 10, & 11 in the article) are direct links to the sources rather than pointing to anything in the 'References' section. Anybody more familiar with Wikipedia's referencing system want to take a stab at fixing this? --Calair 12:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Firsts

The Greens gained their first federal parliamentary representative when Senator Josephine Vallentine of Western Australia, who had been elected in 1984 for the Nuclear Disarmament Party and later sat as an independent, joined the party... Brown, having resigned from the Tasmanian Parliament in 1993, became the Greens' first federal parliamentarian in 1996 when he was elected as a Senator for Tasmania.

Have I misunderstood something, or do those two passages contradict one another? --Calair 02:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it means first elected from the Greens at time of election? Xtra 02:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my apolgies for this sloppy wording. Vallentine was elected for the NDP and later crossed over to the Greens. Brown was elected as a Green candidate. Adam 02:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I guessed that was what was meant, but didn't want to correct without checking first. --Calair 04:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's sloppy wording, but that's not where the issue lies. Vallentine was elected in 1984 as an NDP Senator, resigned to sit as an independent, and joined the Western Australian Greens - then a seperate, if related party - in 1990. The WA Greens - and with them Senators Vallentine, Chamarette and Margetts (who all preceded Brown anyway, making the replacement statement in the article incorrect) were not part of the federal Greens until 2002. Brown was the first Australian Greens Senator in 1996. Rachel Siewert, elected in 2004, is the first WA Green to actually be part of the federal party. Ambi 04:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The current wording says that Bob Brown was the second Greens parliamentarian. In fact he was the fourth. Christabel Chamarette replaced Jo Valentine in 1992, and Dee Margetts was elected in 1993. So whether it's the third one elected, or fourth overall, it's no longer a significant statement. Ben Raue (Talk) 07:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Greens & Democrats

This text has been added:

"In this context, the electoral decline of the Democrats can be seen as a key element of Greens success."

No reference is provided for this. From preference distributions I have looked at, it appears that a lot of the Democrat vote has gone elsewhere than to the Greens. Peter C Talk! 13:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'd agree with your assessment, Peter; it would appear (I won't bother attrib. in a talk page) that the ex-democrat vote has not simply xfrd to the Greens, either in the Aus. state elections of recent weeks or elections in the last few years. Such simplistic assertions are to be avoided. Colonel Tom 13:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It appears from a reading of results that the dem vote was split aprox 2/5 to the greens, 1/5 to labor and 2/5 to the liberals. Xtra 14:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You're talking SA, not Tas? Yep, it simply doesn't translate to anywhere near a one-to-one. Colonel Tom 14:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting difference btw the Greens and Dems. When distributing preferences, people who vote for the Democrates preference Labor over Liberal by a 2:1 ratio, whereas Greens voters favour Labor over the Liberals by a 4:1 ratio. This possibly partly explains why a lot of ex dems voters became liberal voters as op Greens voters. Xtra 14:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No sources to hand, but federally I thought it was more 70:30 or even 65:35 than 80:20. And without stating the obvious more than necessary, the Dems are a Lib offshoot and more centrist than the Greens; there's not the same core constituency. Colonel Tom 14:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's not go nuts here. Where does my edit quoted above talk about one-to-one transfer? Don't forget that the Dems have historically attracted a lot of disenchanted Labor voters, especially during the Kernot/Stott Despoja periods of leadership; these voters aren't going to be heading for the Liberals any time soon. And of course, a lot of "bet hedgers" would vote for a major party in the House and minor in the Senate. The Dems fobbed this themselves after passing the GST; now someone looking for the same effect in the Senate will vote Green (actively encouraged by Green candidates; I still remember Mike Stasse's 'never forget the Democrat's GST' sign). Slac speak up! 09:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Selective deletion

I am about to delete from the history of this talk page those revisions whose content and/or edit summaries libel Xtra, per Wikipedia's libel policy. Selective deletion requires full deletion followed by selective restoration. Therefore this talk page will be deleted for a very brief period of time. Snottygobble 02:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Complete. Snottygobble 02:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

WA Greens

Can someone change the (incorrect) line about the WA Greens being the most successful branch of the party in the early 1990s (seeing as they were not a branch of the party in the early 1990s, but rather a seperate party)? I'm in a bit of a hurry and don't have time to rework the paragraph. Ambi 23:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I reworded it. I'm fuzzy on Greens history, but am I right in thinking that the paragraph two above ("The Greens gained their first federal parliamentary representative when Senator Josephine Vallentine of Western Australia, who had been elected in 1984 for the Nuclear Disarmament Party and later sat as an independent, joined the party") also needs clarification on WA Greens vs Aus Greens? --Calair 00:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. The entire history section really needs clarifying in this respect. It really needs to lay out exactly when each state group affiliated, and detail the working relationship between the parties during the 1990s (what links they had, if any, before 1996, and the working relationship between Margetts and Brown between 1996-98). It needs to make clear that Brown, Nettle, Siewert, Milne and Organ are the only people to represent the party federally, and stop trying to claim (at all) that Vallentine, Chamarette or Margetts were actually Australian Greens Senators. Ambi 00:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Drugs "legalisation" vs "decriminalisation"

Moved by --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 09:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the legalisation of cannabis relates to any of the aforementioned principles, in the first section of the article. Character234 11:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The Greens don't propose cannabis or methamphetamine be legalised - just their personal use be removed from the criminal code. The use of a health based, harm minimisation approach to recreational drug use/abuse instead of a heavy handed, selective and largely ineffective criminal approach (ie Prohibition) is consistent with the Greens principle of social and economic justice. Note that the Greens do not promote lesser penalties for the suppliers and manufacturers of currently illegal drugs - making their enforcement more consistent with illegal supply of presently legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco. Chrismaltby 01:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Single-issue?

"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 ecology."

Is 'claim to' really necessary here? I don't know of anybody, supporter or detractor, who'd describe the Greens as a single-issue party these days; if anything, their stances on things like GLBT rights, Iraq, drug policy, etc etc often attract more criticism from opponents than the environmental policies do. --Calair 02:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it true and verifiable that they claim to have shaken off their reputation as a single issue party? Sancho (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. 2007 NSW election coverage, for instance: "Ms Rhiannon said voters had become aware the Greens had policies across the board and were not a single issue party".

But the 'claim to' bit is unnecessary weasel-wording; it's more significant that they have thrown off that reputation, which is hardly a contentious point. WA Greens: "Green parties are often misrepresented as single issue parties. However, our vision of the future is based on the four interconnecting pillars of social justice, environmental responsibility, peace and nonviolence, and participatory democracy." (National-level policy pages seem to be offline at the moment, but those same four pillars are listed at the federal-level site.)

Institute for Public Affairs: "As this agenda shows, the Greens are far from a single issue party."

Fred Nile: "A lot of young people want to save the forests - so do I. And so the Greens run on that environmental policy, but never reveal their real agenda, which is quite extreme socialist and economic policies and very radical in social policies."

John Howard: "The real Greens agenda needs to be exposed... People who are tempted to vote for the Greens, simply on the basis of their concern for the environment, should learn what else they're voting for."

If both the Greens and their opponents agree that the party is not just about environmental issues, it hardly seems controversial to say that they no longer have a reputation as a single-issue party. --Calair 03:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Herald-Sun dispute

"Supporting the journalists contention however, the APC noted that: "Prior to the publication of the article, the reporter rang Sen. Brown's office asking for the Greens' policies. He was informed 'that all current policies were available on the website'"."

Context can be found here:

"Given the sweeping and unqualified nature of the claims, the newspaper ought to have checked the veracity and currency of the policy claims. Prior to the publication of the article, the reporter rang Sen. Brown's office asking for the Greens' policies. He was informed 'that all current policies were available on the website'. There is evidence that, as well as any use made of the Party's website in writing the article, the reporter preferred other statements of Greens' policies, some erroneous and hostile to the Greens."

This hardly supports the claim that the disputed material came from Greens websites; if anything, it leans the other way. --Calair 09:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite agree. Furthermore, leaving the allegation in totally unsupported overrides the factual content which follows. It's worth noting in this context that the Herald Sun's Murdoch stablemates, the Sydney Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph ran a similar story with equivalent erroneous content prior to both the 2003 and 2007 NSW state elections.Chrismaltby 13:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Terms of Office for Greens Parliamentarians

The recent reverted edits which show terms of office of Greens parliamentarians, synchronised with the date of a federal election are inaccurate and are in fact confusing. The dates are supposed to show when a MP took office & left office, not tell us in which year there was a general election. If you want years for general elections in Australia, these are easy to find. Furthermore, sometimes MP's resign mid-term - eg. Jo Vallentine in 1992 (not 1993 as the reverted edit states), and the term of office does not bear a relationship to election dates. If you want to indicate year of election, this can be shown in parentheses. I suggest this section be fixed up. Mrodowicz 05:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Vallentine. Timeshift 05:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Crypto-fascism

I'll give the editor the benefit of the doubt - how do the Australian Greens policies come under the banner of crypto-fascism? Timeshift 02:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea - the referenced articles are just reports of Liberal pollies slagging the Greens. If you wanted a reasoned argument that wasn't their purpose, or presumably, that of the contributor who thought it vital to add to the political ideology section here. Chrismaltby 07:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Pro-War Greens

See discussion on Talk:Green_party —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismaltby (talk • contribs) 04:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Links

I think both of the parties reverting here need to take a step back from this discussion, as both have strong personal biases here.

Personally, I think these links do not add to the article, and should not remain. Both of these links are anonymous sites made up mostly of personal invective - in essence, online "shit sheets". Material of this nature isn't acceptable in any political party article - I wouldn't stand for it in the Family First, Liberal, Labor or Democrat articles, and I don't believe it is appropriate here.

With this in mind, I think that most of the links in this article which are not directly cited as references should go. Liberal Party of Australia is a much better example in this respect - it contains only the official site, a link to information at the National Library, and one critique by a credible figure in a major newspaper (though I'm not convinced that should be there either, and would probably support its removal, it's a hell of a lot more credible a criticism than these two websites).

In the leadup to the election, I think it might be an idea to try and fix things like this up across all the parties - I'm noticing similar issues with Family First Party as well (blog posts are not credible sources). In the meantime, though, please quit edit warring and discuss things here. Rebecca 10:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Timeshift 10:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That was my point too - the bias allegations are a smokescreen for the undeclared bias of the people who want to promote their ravings. Chrismaltby 00:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to the links User:Prester John keeps adding >>HERE<<? I was reading the article today and found those crazy links down the bottom didn't think such sites are befitting for an encyclopedia.--Lester2 03:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted User:Prester John's recent re-addition of external links to two anonymous anti-Greens hate/smear sites as the links quite clearly don't comply with WP:EL. I left the note below on his talk page about this. Peter Campbell 11:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL before adding partisan links to determine whether they comply with this policy. Adding links to hate/smear sites to political party websites doesn't fit with encyclopaedic content. You could also review other party articles to see the external links they have. Peter Campbell 04:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Rebecca on this one - links to external sites should be used sparingly. Orderinchaos 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice an IP address edits has adding the dodgy links in question today yet again. How many times now, six +? Is it time to partially protect this article? Peter Campbell 12:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It's getting close to that stage for sure. Chrismaltby 07:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Timeshift 07:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Other external links

What is the criteria for the items included under "other external links"? They seem to be a smattering of topics with no apparent criteria. I think they should either be referenced in the body of the article or removed. Peter Campbell 13:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Parliamentary leader

Why does it need to be pointed out that Bob Brown is the parliamentary leader in the infobox? We don't do this for other parties. Timeshift (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Only if we get to include Monarch in there as well :-) FWIW, it has been established that infoboxes don't have to be the same. Since it improves the article, I reckon it should be in there. Shot info (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So how does it improve the article? Did you think Bob Brown was a symbolic leader like some of those weird wacko freaky fringe parties? Also, infobox consistency is preferred, just not a necessity. Timeshift (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

State MPs

If someone can go over the list i've added that would be good. Timeshift (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

ACT Results

Now would be a good time to update with the ACT election results, once they are finalised next week. 130.56.32.2 (talk) 05:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That can/is being done on Australian Capital Territory general election, 2008. Nothing further needs adding on this page. Timeshift (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

updated info or parliamentarians

suggest that we consider adding various titles, for example Dr Bob Brown - leader of the Greens in the Federal Senate, Shane Rattenbury, speaker of ACT Legislative assembly, Merideth Hunter, Leader of ACT greens etc 121.79.19.4 (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why the clutter is needed, their full name/abbreviations and positions should be in the lead of their articles. Timeshift (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as clutter. It would still be one line per person. 121.79.19.4 (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Greens in Local Government.

The Greens have recently won some big advances in Sydney's local council. (They have unseated Labor from Marrickville for example). Should this recent trend have its own section in the article? 203.214.28.145 (talk) 07:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Covered under "local government" at Greens New South Wales Sambauers (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Social Progressivism seems wrong

None of the state parties have this label added to their infoboxes and it seems wholly out of place when the article it links to talks mostly about political parties of different international affiliation to the Australian Greens. The only reason I'm not deleting it straight away is because it has been there so long. Thoughts? Sambauers (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Surprised this one has survived this long - social progressivism is a social theory based in secular humanism, not a political position. I'm tempted to change it to progressivism. Orderinchaos 09:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"Left Wing" was deleted

A link to "Left Wing" was deleted from their info-box, because the Party itself does not describe itself as "left wing". However, I don't think the party is a WP:RS for this kind of call: it seems pretty clear that most of their policies are left wing, so I think it should be retained, although it probably does need a reference. cojoco (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"Left wing" by itself is pretty meaningless. Yes, the policies of the party broadly configure a position that is left of centre, but the words "left wing" actually say very little. Social liberalism or progressivism is probably a better description. Orderinchaos 09:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

One Nation

I have reverted the edit which links a quote from Bob Brown relating to the 1998 Queensland Election and one from Joe Hockey referring to everyone preferencing the Liberals last in a by-election in 2008. The linkage creates the impression that Brown was being hypocritical in 1998, or that the particular circumstances of the 1998-2001 rise of the One Nation Party would implicitly prevail indefinitely. Find a more WP:NPOV way to say why this is relevant to an article on the Greens generally, or specifically to the relationship with conservative parties. Chrismaltby (talk) 09:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Brown is not actually quoted in the text as appeared nor is the date 1998 mentioned, so I'm not sure your charge that an impression is created that "Brown was being hypocritical in 1998" holds up (but certainly Hockey has publicly implied lack of moral consistency by the Greens by referring to the By-Election example - notably on the Q&A Programme recently - which in itself seems relevant to the topic given other references to accusations against the Greens which are listed in the article already etc). I provided a link to Brown's 1998 comments as evidence of the Greens stated historical position, although any number of other sources could do this. There are several reasons to include the more recent reference as well: firstly it references a contemporary critique of the Greens from a senior Conservative (Joe Hockey) and thus is relevant to a section entitled "relationship with conservative parties"; secondly it records the contemporary Greens Party preferencing priority in relation to One Nation and the Liberals (it is among the most recent contemporary evidence of the relations between One Nation and the Greens) In either case it is on topic. But there might be room for dicsussing changed electoral circumstances. I will consider alternatives (or welcome your own suggestion).Observoz (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Several issues with the quote you proposed. First, it misses an important distinction between voter behaviour and party doctrine. Second, it picks up numeric results from one electorate (for distinct candidates) to characterise a whole nation (federal parties). Third, it ignores tactical voting by drawing simplistic conclusions, based on preferential votes which were not applied, for one of the least significant candidates at the election, receiving 0.68% of primary votes [8]. Fourth, it doesn't present the facts. Elekhh (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Observoz, you make my point - by juxtaposing a 1998 media release from Bob Brown with a 2009 comment from Hockey (and where Hockey's main purpose was defending a decline in voter support for his own party) as if they were contemporaneous, you create a misleading (ie WP:NPOV) appearance of hypocrisy in relation to Greens preferences for conservative parties. And besides the enormous changes to the political landscape in the last 11 years, as Elekhh points out, it also ignores tactical considerations and the actions of individual voters. Chrismaltby (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Observoz would do well to read WP:SYN. And also really think about the WP:POV contributions they make which can at times be quite heavily anti-left and pro-right. Timeshift (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Tammy Jennings

Any chance of a free pic anyone? Timeshift (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion of Tammy Jennings

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tammy Jennings. Timeshift (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Parliamentary election history

Year	Vote %	MPs
1993	1.86%	0
1996	1.74%	0
1998	2.14%	0
2001	4.96%	0
2004	7.19%	0
2007	7.79%	0

Alex Douglas (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Two issues there, the Greens and other minor parties are Senate parties, their Senate vote should be stated as a Senate vote and presented as a Senate vote. Second, the Australian Greens weren't the Australian Greens until the 1996 election. 1993 shouldn't be there. Timeshift (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

article structure

Why is there a section on the responsibilities of each federal parliamentarian? Why are there lists of every green member elected or 'notable'? It seems very odd when compared to the alp, liberal party or even the democrats pages.. not sure what needs to change, it just feels weird when reading it. 182.239.159.208 (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The list of elected Greens members is normal for minor party pages (including the Democrats), but the rest I have to agree. Frickeg (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree it should be prose not lists. --Elekhh (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Who, members or noteables? Members should be in a list, noteables no. Timeshift (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree the members should stay in a list, but everything else - senators' responsibilities, notable members, etc. - should be prose. Frickeg (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the top of the article, I managed to get away with five Senators, their roles and images, but I think doing the same with nine Senators is a bridge too far. Timeshift (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Portfolio responsibilities should be removed and put in individual WP:BLPs, or in a separate article, like First Gillard Ministry. The section could be cut-paste. --Surturz (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you should have properly proposed here what you immediately did, which was to remove the material and create Current Australian Greens Alternate Ministry and seek consensus here. Alternate Ministries, particularly of minor parties are very different from a proper ministry in government. So, let us look for consensus. I suggest that your edits be reverted. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Alternate ministry? LOL! I agree with Bduke. My reasonings are pretty much summed up here. It's the really long post at the bottom of that particular talk section. Timeshift (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Graph

Perhaps this article could be improved with a graph showing the greens number of (primary) votes over time? any one got one? --Hypo Mix (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Pretty redundant in my opinion considering the mini table in the 2010 onward section. Timeshift (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Found one anyway if consensus changes http://greens.org.au/sites/greens.org.au/files/u543/Growth-of-Greens-vote_0.png --Hypo Mix (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"Recent policy positions" section within the article...

The heading and some of the content screams of WP:RECENT. I much preferred the previous section, the new section mixes policies with what seems to be some people's agendas... I can't help but feel a pointy soapboxy-ness about it when reading it... thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some of the text needs improvement and clarification. Some of it is just too vague (and, yeah Soapboxy). Saying the Greens "support" refugees, for example. Given that all major Parties support a refugee component in Australian immigration, I think this article should state what differentiates the Greens in relation to refugees ie do they advocate increasing the number of refugees, increasing funding for refugees, expanding the definition of refugees etc etc. Are they only referring to Asylum Seekers, or what? The text is not clear. Same goes for lines such as "prepare for peak oil" and "promote renewable energies". It's just too broad. Clearing it up will take elbow grease though. Observoz (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Policies change. We don't have what we have on this article, on the major party articles. Timeshift (talk) 11:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Factual Innaccuracy

"All four seats were retained in the 2006 election. After gaining 5 seats in the 2010 election, in April 2010 Nick McKim became the first Green Minister in Australia."

This sentance seems to imply that the greens have lower house seats in Tasmania unless i am somehow misunderstanding it.

"In the 2011 NSW State election, the Greens claimed their first lower-house seat in the district of Balmain."

This sentence seems to imply that the first lower house seat came in 2011.

There seems to be some innaccuracy here. ★★RetroLord★★ 08:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they have lower house seats in Tasmania. Tasmania elects its lower house via the Hare-Clark proportional system, similar (but not identical) to how the Senate is elected. The Greens have held seats in the Tasmanian lower house continuously since their formation in the early 90s. Meanwhile, I would say the Balmain one refers to their first lower house seat in the New South Wales Parliament. By all means clarify the sentence if you think it's misleading. Frickeg (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of pictures explanation - Nick-D

Ok, I removed the pictures as I felt they were an unnecessary addition and stuck too much detail on the few current sitting greens, as compared to everything else greens party related.

I went to have a look at some other minority parties here in Australia and around the world, and from the ones I saw, no other page had pictures of all current parliamentary greens.

The 4 other minor political parties I checked have roughly comparable influence and seat numbers as the greens. (Apart from Katter)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Labor_Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Torah_Judaism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katter%27s_Australian_Party

Thanks, ★★RetroLord★★ 05:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, my position would seem to comply more with the Recentism and Precedent policies. ★★RetroLord★★ 08:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not a good comparison: one of the reasons those parties don't have images is that we don't have photos of all their members released on Wikipedia-friendly CC licenses as is the case for the Greens. I think that the photos add a fair bit of value to the article given that the Greens have never managed to get all that many people elected and their individual senators tend to have a high profile once they get in. Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a poor argument to use articles that lack any free use photographs (as Nick-D has pointed out above). I don't agree with them being laid out in a gallery style (a list could be better) but doesn't mean that the photos should be removed. Bidgee (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I would also imagine having the pictures there gives undue weight to currently sitting federal parliamentarians, over state parliamentarians of former ones. And there seems to be a precedent in other major Australian political party articles that you do not include a picture of every federal politician.★★RetroLord★★ 07:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems you can't make up your mind. How is it undue? Did you just ignore what was said? Regardless, you'll need to gain a consensus for your removal. Bidgee (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Well please provide some policy or precedent based reasons as to why my edits should be reverted otherwise I will keep them in. Thanks. ★★RetroLord★★ 09:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

No, you need to gain a consensus! I'm restoring the stable version. Bidgee (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Please also note the previous discussion on this very same topic at Talk:Australian Greens#Use of photos of senators. --ELEKHH^T 10:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

So, anyone from the more pictures brigade prepared to step up and give some policy-based reasons the pictures should stay? All this screaming about consensus from people so happy to ignore policy! ★★RetroLord★★ 10:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you please stop with the accusations of bad faith and rude comments? Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Censorship from the ILIKEIT admin. Thankyou NickD, for your contributions to this page. They are duly noted. ★★RetroLord★★ 10:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Political Labels in Infobox

So, here are some proposals for discussion.

• Add Left-wing to the infobox
• Add Social Democracy
• Add Social Progressive or the like

These stances are all fairly well documented, and we all know the greens stand for things other than green politics as currently mentioned. When replying please avoid linking to a previous discussion, consensus changes. ★★RetroLord★★ 15:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable and verifiable sources that are not vague? Bidgee (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Someone is pushing a POV here. You won't let it in without a 100% clear-cut reference? Half the article is referenced. Why are you so desperate to avoid having the greens labelled as left wing, or even socially progressive? Given that their policies are so blatantly socially progressive I didn't think I would have such a hard time getting that bit in there. ★★RetroLord★★ 15:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no POV on this matter, the burden is up to you to find supporting sources. Bidgee (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Fact: University students are in general more left wing than an average member of society. It is probable you DO have a POV on this subject. Earlier your argument was that it was incorect, now your argument is it is unreferenced? Someone is pretty desperate to stop this getting into the article....★★RetroLord★★ 15:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you remove the above uncivil personal attack. Again, I have no POV and the burden is up to you to get a new consensus and find supported sources. Bidgee (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Uncivil personal attack? You sound like the guy at WP:AN or the like who recently proposed a ban over being called a "non-entity". ★★RetroLord★★ 16:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Retrolord, have you read the section above headed "Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion" and the discussion at that noticeboard that is linked there? I updated the link last week to now point to the archive of that discussion. The point there was slightly different from what you are asking for, but it is very relevant. The consensus was clear to have as little as possible in the infobox on the political stance and therefore only use "green politics". Do we all have to join in again to get the same consensus? You have said nothing that changes that consensus. And, what does "University students are in general more left wing than an average member of society" have to do with this discussion? --Bduke (Discussion) 23:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Because its pretty clear-cut the greens are left wing. One senator is a former communist party and another green did a PhD on marxism. Their economic policies are socialist, the social policies are very progressive. Hence the labels left wing and social progressive. In Australian media they are just reffered to as communists its so obvious, no citation required. ★★RetroLord★★ 06:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You're bit of a hypocrite to say that no citation is need for your own opinion, yet you wanted a source for something that is obvious. I'm getting a little sick of your attacks and the pushing the point editing, which in effect is bullying. Bidgee (talk) 08:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A friend of mine did a PhD on yabbies. She isn't a yabbie. HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Lee Rhiannon ★★RetroLord★★ 07:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Mickey Mouse HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This again? Geez. I don't see how anything's changed, frankly. The left-right spectrum is increasingly unhelpful (if I had my way it'd be gone from all political infoboxes), and as has been amply demonstrated is especially problematic for comparatively new parties like this. What on earth is wrong with simply saying "green politics"? (I suppose I would not necessarily be opposed to "social progressive", provided there were reliable sources.) Frickeg (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Goodness. The vanguards of the Greens wouldn't even let me add social progressive. ★★RetroLord★★ 23:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your personal attacks, and try to engage in a constructive dialogue. See MOS:INFOBOX#Purpose of an infobox which states "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". Hence it is reasonable to say that if a party is best described by a particular ideology, than there is no need for further, more generic descriptions in the infobox. --ELEKHH^T 01:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

As by far the most socially progressive party in Australia, i'm pretty sure they'd be dissapointed to hear anyone describe that as irrelevant to their core ideology. Next to saving the franklin river and neo-marxism, I'd say social progressivism is right up there. ★★RetroLord★★ 01:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Not one of the above comments said it was irrelevant. There are times on wikipedia when editors need to recognise that they are outside the consensus and that the time has come to shut up and concentrate on other concerns which are more likely to be important. That time has come for you, Retrolord, here. ELEKHH has it spot on. Stop personal attacks and accept that there is no need for further, more generic descriptions in the infobox. One is enough. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Retrolord might do well to more carefully read the article and follow some links. The lead links to Green politics which tells us that "Green politics is a political ideology that aims to create an ecologically sustainable society rooted in environmentalism, social justice, and grassroots democracy...The party's platform is largely considered left in the political spectrum." So, much of what Retrolord wants listed separately is pretty much already encompassed by the term Green politics. It would be redundant to add elements already covered by that term. HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Minor improvements

Hi all, since I'm lazy and my wiki-fu is horrendous I'll just make a couple minor suggestions and hopefully a kind editor, who wants to get their edit count up, will action them.

• Firstly the capitalisation after dot points in the article is all over the shop - not sure what the conventions is, but let's stick to one or the other.
• Under the 'Immigration' policy position is the statement 'support for a low population Australia'. I think they would argue that they support a sustainable population - and lest you think I am squabbling over semantics they specifically note that sustainability and population can be de-coupled with sufficient technology, distribution of resources etc... (see here) It might be kinder to say they support a 'sustainable' population and that at the moment this means a lower level of population growth. Wordsmiths can make that WP appropriate I'm sure.
• All of the above shouldn't be under the immigration tab, which implies that the Greens are opposed to population growth through immigration (they aren't).
• Under the same tab I think you could get rid of the 'support for refugees' because it's essentially a meaningless statement. I'm sure all parties claim that they are in favour of supporting refugees. Rather why not flesh out what the Greens think helps support refugees'. This might provide some inspiration.

All the best 203.38.24.65 (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these very pertinent observations. I tried to address them, but surely there is still plenty of scope for further improvement. --ELEKHH^T 03:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Left Wing

The Greens are clearly a left wing party. All their social and economic policies go from left to far left winged. The ABC and The Sydney Morning Herald has called the Greens far left (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/the-greens-loony-extreme-or-just-a-little-leftwing-20120710-21t4f.html), while others have put them of the left to far left spectrum (http://ldp.org.au/quiz/ozparties.html). Wikipedia even has them as a left wing party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Australia), (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_politics). They support most ALP policies, but have always tried to take them further. What is there to argue, they are clearly a (far)left winged party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas11213 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

See the extensive discussion above. This keeps coming up and there is no consensus to add left wing and also a strong consensus to keep the infobox simple. "Green politics" covers everything. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Many wiser folk these days consider the traditional linear spectrum of political positions too simplistic. You are doing the right thing looking at sources, but your choices are not good. Another political party's view cannot be used. (The LDP.) The SMH article is one writer's opinion. It would need to be clearly attributed. (Is she important? I've never heard of her.) The entry in List of political parties in Australia is not sourced, so really shouldn't be there. That's actually a very poor article. HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Many people agree with Andreas11213 in saying that the Greens are a left wing party. All their policies are left wing and even go into far left. Yet the only reason you won't allow it to be added to the infobox is because it isn't "sourced" or the sources provided aren't good enough for you. Many people have argued their case only to be knocked back by HiLo48 and others for no particular reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.17.246 (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about me. it's about reliable sourcing. Please click on that link and read the article carefully. HiLo48 (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

There are actually several issues here. The first is that during the last 12 hours or so, the infobox has been changed many times and reverted. That means that is there is no concensus to change it and therefore everybody should stop changing it and discuss it rationally here. The second point is that this has been discussed many times. Indeed there are three sections above under the headings "Political position", "Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion" and "Ideology". There are at least two other discussions in the archives of the talk page. If you want to change it, you should read those previous discussions before discussing it here. A third point is that there seems to be a strong view among the editors who contribute here that the infobox over-simplifies a complex issue. That view is not held to quite the same extent by editors on other articles. The political position of the Greens is indeed complex and perhaps it should not be described by simple headings. To just use "Green politics", which encompasses a lot, including left wing views, satisfies this point. Finally, yes, any change needs sources, but there might be sources that contradict the ones that say they are far left. For example, they do not support nationalisaton of the means of production, which is a classic far-left position. They are certainly "progressive", but I am not sure they are "left". All this nuancing is covered by "Green politics", so I support the status quo. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all of that, especially the thought that a simple label in an Infobox is of little use at all. HiLo48 (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Marxism is far left (http://www.marxistleftreview.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46:a-marxist-critique-of-the-australian-greens&catid=34:issue-1-spring-2010&Itemid=77).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_political_parties

http://greens.org.au/policy All you need to do is look at their policies, they are clearly at least a left-wing party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas11213 (talk 06:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Andreas11213 (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please don't change the article again until a change in consensus occurs here. So far, nobody has agreed with you. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseam for years. I see nothing in this discussion to change the consensus view. Frickeg (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

State MP numbers in lead infobox

Why are we starting to do this? Timeshift (talk) 06:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Should we keep the HoR result table?

This one. Seems pretty pointless to have one for a party that's only got one HoR seat. We don't and shouldn't have it for Palmer or Katter. Timeshift (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I could go either way on this one. I think it's helpful to have the bits of the table concerning the changes in their vote over time, and I think (although less strongly) that it's useful to have the changes in seats over time. I agree that the house table is otherwise a bit pointless, and it takes up a lot of space and looks messy for the information it's trying to convey; however, I don't think the Senate table works without the House table. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox seat numbers

I don't understand why there is opposition to including state and territory parliaments in the infobox. The only argument that seems to have been made against it, at the talk page for the liberal party, is that it serves no purpose to have the total number of state seats displayed. But there is a very clear purpose served by it: it shows the overall electoral strength of the party. This is particularly important with the greens, as one may wish to compare the overall strength of the party with other green parties worldwide.

More importantly, though, having only federal seats displayed in the infobox is incredibly inappropriate for a federal state like Australia. It suggests that the federal parliament is more important than the state parliaments, which is at best purely an opinion. State parliaments are just as sovereign and just as powerful in their areas of governance as the federal parliament, so if federal seats are to be in the infobox, state seats should be too. Colonial Overlord (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

IMO it's a bit misleading to lump all the states and territories together in this way - I don't see how it helps readers understand the issue. The comparison is also somewhat problematic - the Greens do better in the states with proportional representation (Tasmania and the ACT) than they do in states with single member representation due to the way the electoral systems play out. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It's original research: this figure is not coming from anywhere, it's reliant on calculations by Wikipedians and can't be easily checked against anything (for example to see if it's been updated after an election or six). The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

And as well as the above - we've already got bar graphs for each state lower down in the article already, just like Lab/Lib. Timeshift (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: Calculations are NOT original research. Just as we don't need a reference to say that the sky is blue, we don't need a reference to say that 1+1=2. Notwithstanding that, I actually agree that adding up seats from different parliaments is not very useful and shouldn't be in the infobox. It would be more useful to have File:AusGreensRepesentation.png updated and re-included in the article. --ELEKHH^T 06:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Calculations are not original research "provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources", which in this case there clearly is not. I agree that this is not a useful figure, and not only does proportional representation destroy any kind of meaning it might have, the size of the chambers does too (five out of 25 in Tasmania is obviously rather different to, say, 5 out of 93 in NSW). Frickeg (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding calculations, it doesn't look like anyone is disputing that the total number of state seats is correct, obvious and a meaningful reflection of the sources. The only dispute is whether the figure is a relevant and useful addition to the article, so the discussion should focus on that, not on the idea that the calculation is OR as it clearly isn't.

The fact that state seat numbers are included further down in the article is irrelevant; federal seats are also included further down but are also in the infobox; having federal seats mentioned twice but state seats only once gives undue priority to the federal parliament.

I fail to see what difference proportional representation makes; the article is about the Australian Greens, not about electoral systems; what matters is how many seats the greens have, not how they got them. I can see the issue with the different sizes of the parliaments; ideally each state would be shown separately but that would clutter up the infobox. The problem is that the current situation is a distortion of the Australian political system, in which the states are just as important as the commonwealth. I think either having all states shown separately or having nothing in the infobox would be preferable to this federal chauvinism. Colonial Overlord (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely dispute that the number is "meaningful", for what it's worth. It is a totally meaningless figure, as a composite, that tells the reader nothing. I have no problem with the federal parliament being included and the state parliaments not. The federal parliament is, after all, the main game - it is the national government, as opposed to localised states - and this article is about the national political party. The state branches, FWIW, all have their own pages (as the major parties really should), and there, where the state parliaments are more relevant (and singular), they would be appropriate for inclusion in the infobox. Here, we have three options: (a) a meaningless calculation, (b) a stupidly cluttered infobox, or (c) the information being represented accurately and meaningfully in the article proper. (c) is the clear choice. Frickeg (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Socialist?

Interesting to see the Greens listed as democratic socialists in the InfoBox. It is unsourced but I wonder if the Greens ever referred to themselves as socialists outside of their claim that many of their supporters were "watermelons" (green on the outside, red on the inside). Their policies seem more social democrat than socialist. Then again there are those within Labor who claim the party is socialist so I guess actual policy has little to do with whether or not a party is socialist in this country. Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverted confusing IP edits. Green politics is a much better descriptor, as extensively discussed above on this talk page. --ELEKHH^T 12:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Australian Greens: Centre-left?

Actually, Australian Greens is centre-left party because Greens is in the centre-left politics. Everyone had argued about should we add this party "left-wing" in political position but how about "centre-left" for Australian Greens ? Because in page "Centre-left politics" in Wikipedia said it includes Greens. Minhle20002013 (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

No, the argument is not about labelling green politics left, centre or right. It is about being non-educational to use a hyper-simplistic left-right political spectrum in the 21st century when it comes to a party that rejects such reductionism, as per the multiple comments above. -ELEKHH^T 12:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Green politics of Australian Greens exactly is left (include Centre-left) that why Green Party in UK and USA were labeled "left-wing'" in position.Did you find any policies of Australian Greens that connect to the right wing politics?Minhle20002013 (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Just read again the above, follow the links, and come across things like "right wing and left wing, which originally referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament after the Revolution (1789–99)." ... "Political scientists have frequently noted that a single left–right axis is insufficient for describing the existing variation in political beliefs". --ELEKHH^T 12:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australian Greens. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/political/greens-nod-sees-stanhope-keep-job/1349315.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120416005834/http://www.smartcompany.com.au/economy/20110224-carbon-price-to-begin-from-july-2012-midday-roundup.html to http://www.smartcompany.com.au/economy/20110224-carbon-price-to-begin-from-july-2012-midday-roundup.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091023154810/http://web.senate@aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rb/2004-05/05rb13.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/RB/2004-05/05rb13.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Australian Greens. 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/20060209143420/http://www.bobbrown.org.au/assets/200_Senator_Bob_Brown.pdf to http://www.bobbrown.org.au/assets/200_Senator_Bob_Brown.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110316143541/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/73A134BD8CA52844CA2572FB0014E42B to http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/73A134BD8CA52844CA2572FB0014E42B
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081020031826/http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/daily/2008/260608.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/daily/2008/260608.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100901072438/http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefsByGroup-15508-NAT.htm to http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefsByGroup-15508-NAT.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/01/2999219.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Richard Di Natale photo listed for deletion?

A wikimedia message was left for me indicating missing permission information. I was under the impression for years that Green parliamentarian photos were licensed under creative commons but upon review it seems ambiguous. As late as March 2016, the Greens website stated "This website is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Australia License". However, the current Greens website states "This website, excluding trademarked logos and images or content noted otherwise, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Australia Licence". When it says trademarked logos and images, are they referring to naturally trademarked logos and graphic images, and not photos? Or does the disclaimer read as excluding photos too? I'm pretty sure from memory that the Greens' intent is for their parliamentarian photos to be licensed under creative commons... perhaps those users on here who have at least some sort of informal connection might be able to get the webmaster to explicitly state that parliamentarian photos are counted as licensed under creative commons? Timeshift (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australian Greens. 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/20100905044256/http://greens.org.au/greens_labor_deal to http://greens.org.au/greens_labor_deal
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120728194138/http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/elections/state/State2012/results/summary.html to http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/elections/state/State2012/results/summary.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Australian Greens. 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/20120403144238/http://greens.org.au/content/greens-support-un-backed-force-against-gaddafi to http://greens.org.au/content/greens-support-un-backed-force-against-gaddafi
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060712110212/http://greens.org.au/aboutusfolder/ to http://greens.org.au/aboutusfolder/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100623091820/http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/adj/1270.html to http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/adj/1270.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040818232243/http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/sandgategreens/Organisational%20Framework%20of%20the%20Australian%20Greens.htm to http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/sandgategreens/Organisational%20Framework%20of%20the%20Australian%20Greens.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.countryalliance.org/videos.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706125215/http://bob-brown.greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/greens-preferences-crucial-election-outcome-and-one-nations-chances to http://bob-brown.greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/greens-preferences-crucial-election-outcome-and-one-nations-chances

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Greens Ideology and political position.

There is no reason to dispute or revert my changes to the greens ideology and political positions when I have used their own policies and statements as reasoning for my edits. I provided sources.

Sources:

Social Justice - https://greens.org.au/policies/social-justice

Pro-immigration - https://greens.org.au/policies/immigration-refugees

Anti-Capitalism - https://greens.org.au/magazine/wa/future-economy

Socialism: They also have socialist policies and regulation suggestions, which is more broad then linking a direct page that says "Yes! We are socialists!".

These political positions listed above would push their ideology to "Far-left". They are definitely not "Centre-left", as the evidence shows.

T3hfix3r (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Original research. Any personal conclusions of yours (or any other editor) as to Greens policy are explicitly banned: we can only cite what reliable sources have to say. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

So the "ideology" box is usually used for a couple of broad terms describing a party's overall viewpoint ("social conservatism", "social democracy", "populism"). It is generally not used for policy-specific things like "pro-immigration". That link does not say that the Greens are anti-capitalist, and you certainly don't get to extrapolate "socialism" because you think their policies are that way - for it to appear in the infobox they would need to explicitly say that they are socialist. The only one of your proposed additions that is backed up by the source is "social justice", and that is already covered under "Green politics" (see the first sentence of that page). So in this case I see no reason to change the status quo.

I thought we had agreed to leave left-right stuff out of the infobox altogether? Let's go back to that. Frickeg (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

As I recall, it was removed from the major parties, but not the minor parties. I feel like it's unnecessary to remove them from the minor parties unless there's serious dispute about it - for a party like the Greens, green politics defines it pretty clearly and unarguably. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear - I meant remove "centre-left" (which was definitely agreed above), not "green politics". Frickeg (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, absolute agreement there then. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

If you look at One Nations page, it has

"Ideology:

Australian nationalism, Conservatism, Right-wing populism, Protectionism, Economic nationalism, Anti-immigration, Anti-multiculturalism, Anti-Islam"

Does this not go against everything that was just written above? Most of these things are not stated officially by the party explicitly as you expect for the greens and thing such as "anti-immigration", "anti-multiculturalism" and "anti-islam" are the same as it being suggested that things like "pro-immigration" should not be used? T3hfix3r (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does, and I would support removing most of those as well. Frickeg (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@INTP.aussie: @Araratic: As an uninvolved editor, please do not make more than three reverts in a 24 hour period. This applies to everyone. An edit war is not helpful, please discuss here instead. –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 10:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The Greens have a senator from the COMMUNIST party of Australia, how the heck are they not far left?! They are definitely extreme left, stop editing the fact they are far left and go get some more welfare. Ridiculous of you to interfere with the truth, SAD! INTP.aussie (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

As @The Drover's Wife: says above, "Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Original research. Any personal conclusions of yours (or any other editor) as to Greens policy are explicitly banned: we can only cite what reliable sources have to say." Do you have any reliable sources that says that this party is "far left"? –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 11:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more with The Drover's Wife and Gladamas - Pauline Hanson was a member of the Liberals, do we call them a nationalist, right-wing populist party? No. The Labor party has had more communist members than any other party in Australian history and still has more than any other party, but you'd be a laughing stock if you called them communists. Two Queensland Labor MP's were charged with child abuse, but it's not a pedophile party. Serial Killer Thomas John Ley was a member of the Nationalist party, one of the parties that merged to eventually form the Liberal party, we don't call them a homicidal maniac party, do we. another Liberal, Wilson "Iron bar" Tuckey, was convicted of an extremely violent, racist assault, it's how he got his nickname...Barry Morris was convicted of making death threats...but we don't call the Liberals a criminal gang...because parties are not their members (hope that makes sense for you)Bacondrum (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you serious? Just search up Lee Rhinannon communist, there’s dozens of links. Insane for you to edit me and then try and hide behind a block. Stop editing it, go drink some more soy INTP.aussie (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

"go drink some more soy" no personal abuse please, you are being abusive and not assuming good faith based on that quote - it is clear that you have a stong Green viewpoint, you should not edit the page if you are so emotionally invested in. Bacondrum (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Please have a read of the multiple discussions further up this page on the matter of the Greens' Ideology and Position. HiLo48 (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I found this article that appears to show that the communist links are unfounded. –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 11:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

In fairness, it is an opinion piece, not a news story. –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 11:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Even if this is true, I would say one person does not define the whole political position of the party. The party's policies and values would provide a more accurate definition of the political position. Araratic | talk 11:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the consensus is that this party is centre-left to left-wing. Changing the article now –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 11:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

No, absolutely not that is not consensus by any measure. No one should be changing the position. Find some quality citations to back your claim, nothing else would justify the change. This debate is mostly POV opinion and a lot of it is clearly aggressively biased - The party is lead by a wealthy, conservative doctor FFS!!! The Australian Greens are a mainstream socially-democratic environmental party, the kind that is common and mainstream around the world, morst European and American nations have mainstream green partys of a similar nature. Germany was lead by a very similar party between 1998 to 2005 and hardly became a Marxist loonatic asylum, Germany is not a country one would compare to Cuba or Venezuela. Their strongest electoral results are generally in wealthy metropolitan seats such as Kooyong, Melbourne, Higgins, and Melbourne Ports. The Greens essentially absorbed the centre-left Democrats support base following its downfall If they are left or radical left, what does that make communists, Maoists, Trotskyists etc. this argument is ridiculous IMO. If we want to debate about our opinions of the Greens, which is not what we are here for, I'd say they are a conservative, small L liberal enviromental party to me, their star celebrity candidate at the next election is Julian Burnside, a left-wing lawyer yes, but a lawyer whose a member of the Savage Club, an elite conservative club that counts many LNP members among it's members...hardly radical left. Gah! Bacondrum (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

References