Talk:Australian Greens/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Liberal policy of putting the Greens last

Anythoughts how we should discuss it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8digits (talk • contribs) 07:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, through discussion and not through edit wars. At a minimum, the way it is worded is not in accordance with wikipedia guidelines. As your edit is a change from the status quo and it is disputed, you are required to form consensus on here rather than engage in an edit war. Timeshift (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I can see why we would want it in the election articles, but does it need to be in this one?  -- Lear's Fool _mobile 08:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest a "wait and see" approach. It's not vital to include this information now and it all seems a little speculative. Post election, mentioning preferencing might fit with a general commentary on the election result, when impact might be clearer.Observoz (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me.  -- Lear's Fool 14:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why the Libs preferencing should be mentioned in this article at all. Probably should be mentioned in the election article, possibly mentioned in the Libs article but it has no relevance here. The only notable mentions IMO are if The Greens get a seat on the back of Liberal (or ALP) preferences. --Surturz (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Calibre and quality of recent edits

Ho hum. I think recent edits on this page would do well with some highlighted scrutiny. Timeshift (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

(Evil?) Socialists

Twice now user Observoz has added material about Greens members having previously been "socialists". His source is The Australian, which has been accused recently by Bob Brown of conducting a vendetta against the Greens. While the claim is probably true, it seems very selective, and ignores the possibility that (other?) members were associated with other political entities. Too often, these kinds points are made with the intention of getting people to think that there is currently a connection between the Greens and those evil socialists. I don't like the fact only those nasty commos (often meant o be associated with socialists by their detractors) are being mentioned here. What is the point? Is it a deliberate POV addition, with the intention of subtly condemning the party? Is the claim notable enough to be included, without including other past political alliances? HiLo48 (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hardly. Observoz can't even get his facts right: Adam Bandt (whose name he can't spell) was part of Left Alliance (which was an NUS faction, not a political party), and wasn't actually socialist (though included some socialists). More generally it's also an assertion not backed up by evidence; with the notable exception of Rhiannon, the vast majority of the party came from either Labor or Democrat roots, with a fair few ex-Liberals as well. Rebecca (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Per my post above this one. Observoz's edits continue to be of concern to me. Timeshift (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rebecca. I certainly seemed a POV addition to me. That the facts were wrong too says something about the thinking behind the change. More political sloganeering than reality. HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the objection to inclusion of the word "socialism". It's not POV (or "evil" as HiLO48 mockingly suggests). it's a common political/economic philosophy and it has been (or is followed) by some Greens. What is the big deal here? We include stuff about Greens switching to Labor and opposing the LIberals and protesting against One Nation. Why on earth can't we deal with some Greens work for socialist movements? This is simply part of the picture of some Greens and Green voters - to some readers this aspect will appeal, to some it will not - but to all it will add knowledge and that is our purpose here.Observoz (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the word "socialist" is that it is frequently used to score political points in a negative way. When you made your additions in isolation it suggested to me that that was your intention. If you had included a description of ALL other political connections previously held by ALL current Greens members, be that Labor, Liberal, Democrat, etc, that allegation could not have been made. HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing question Hilo, but again I don't think you are making a strong argument - you can't read my new addition in isolation, but only as part of a long discussion on Green connections and disputes with ALP, Libs, Unions, One Nation, Family First etc. That said, Rebecca's corrections about spelling and the precise status of the Left Alliance are ok.However, Hilo says my edit was "probably true" but that he reverted because he doesn't "like socialists being mentioned" because some people might think that there is "currently a connection". This seems a dubious basis for reversion based on a feeling that readers will infer negativity from mere mention of the word "socialism". In fact, readers will infer either negativity or positivity based on their own point of view of socialism - meanwhile, all we have to do in our article is reflect the facts. Rhiannon herself said of the Greens in her maiden speech to Parliament that "many of us have a great deal in common with the Labor ideals as set out in the Labor Party’s constitution, such as the call for "redistribution of political and economic power", "the development of public enterprises based upon... forms of social ownership"" This is an open position by a current Greens senator. Now it may be that there are different schools of thought within the Greens - and that is relevant and can be dealt with. But a policy of censoring the word "socialist" from this wikipedia article because Hilo "doesn't like it" - is not vaild. Nevertheless, I will work on a text that accounts for Rebecca's corrections and Hilo's concerns. Let me have a think...Observoz (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not that you said someone had been a member of the Socialist Party, but that you said it in isolation. Many Greens have been members of other parties in the past. To just highlight one of them distorts the balance of the article. I would have no problem with you mentioning ALL the past party memberships, but I do have a problem with you mentioning just one, especially one that I think we would all agree has potentially negative connotations. Compare this with the absence of sensitivity in saying that someone was a past member of the Democrats. List them all, and all will be well. HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Then the "problem" is false. I didn't say anything in isolation. I added to an extensive list of party associations - including information on Greens who switched from Labor. So let's move on. I agree some reference to Democrats will benefit article. I recall a time in fact when there was talk of a merger.Observoz (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Political Position/Ideology

Is there a problem with terming the Greens as left-wing? I concede that the left-right dichotomy is a rather arbitrary sort of classification but both the ALP and Libs are labelled 'centre-left' and 'centre-right' on their respective pages (and unreferenced). The Greens policy platform would in this context logically fall to the left/centre-left, even if they don't explicitly self-identify as such.

A reference to the Greens and their voting base as left-wing: "Can the Australian Greens Replace the Australian Democrats as a 'Third Party' in the Senate?" David Charnock. Australian Journal of Political Science. Canberra: Jun 2009. Vol. 44, Iss. 2; p. 245-258 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simjom02 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding A Policy

I decided to include the policy about the Greens wanting to abolish the 30% healthcare rebate, as I think this is an important policy which could cause some controversy, if the public widely knew about it. I have included a link to their official website, so it perfectly balanced. Also I may have made the mistake of labeling it as a minor edit, I am not sure whether it is or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaoooj (talk • contribs) 11:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope that by "could cause some controversy" you don't mean "I don't like it". That would be a POV change. ;-) I've tidied the wording a little. HiLo48 (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Greens clearly left-wing

I recently added the Greens political position as 'left-wing'. HiLo48 objectced to this, calling it 'simplisitc' and implying it was a 'biased' change. I don't think anyone would be in denial they are a left-wing party. I notice the following articles on Australian political parties contain a 'political position': Katter's Australian Party (right wing), Family First Party (right-wing), National Party of Australia (centre-right), Liberal Party of Australia (centre-right]], Australian Labor Party (centre-left), Australian Protectionist Party (far-right) and more. The Greens are proudly left wing, and I'd be happy to provide sources to verify that the general view is that the Greens are left-wing. I think this is more an issue of people being precious and seeing things through the prism of their own obvious bias.Politicalworkingdog (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, reliable sources would help a lot. I have a very strong personal bias against simplistic, one or two word entries like this for what are really quite complex positions. HiLo48 (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

List of reliable sources:

1. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/greens-face-backlash-over-prison-action/story-fn59niix-1226010299834

2. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/alp-must-steer-clear-of-greens-says-swan/story-fn59niix-1225959765306

3. http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/47292 This is an interesting one. Published in the clearly left Gren Left Weekly.

4. http://www.actnow.com.au/Opinion/Whats_the_difference_between_left_and_right_wing.aspx

5. http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/sys_gov.html Here is the Dept. Foreign Affairs and Trade calling the Greens left-wing.

Please review these sources. Politicalworkingdog (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd have serious doubts about anything in The Australian being a reliable comment on The Greens. The two bodies seem to hate one another. But let's go through the sources....

1. Two unions are described as left wing, not The Greens, so no value there.

2. It's a Labor politician expressing his opinion. Not an independent source, and he is clearly intending the term to be deprecatory.

3. It's about bringing the left wing of the party "into line". That suggests that the mainstream position is not left wing. And all parties have "wings" that lean more left than others, even the Liberal Party.

4. An interesting, self-declared "opinion piece" essay, by an unknown author in a blog type environment (Wikipedia doesn't like blogs as sources). The first response says "the left right distinction is no longer relevant". That hardly helps.

5. The one genuinely reliable source there, and frankly, I'm stunned! I really didn't expect a government website to use such labels. I guess if the government uses the term, Wikipedia can too.

But I still don't like it. That comment from point 4. above says it all. "The left right distinction is no longer relevant." Left wing used to mean things about public ownership of the means of production. Does it now mean support for trees and gay marriage? To right wingers, or conservatives (does that definition work?), left seems to mean "the things we don't like". Millions of words have been written over these definitions. The Greens are not Communists. One or two words in an Infobox don't cut it for me. HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think it matters what you think. Clearly, various sources state the obvious, including a reliable .gov website. I think it should be changed. I don't see you complaining on other pages. Politicalworkingdog (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Since it appears that you has been blocked indefinitely, I do not think it matters what you think! --Bduke (Discussion) 23:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I've explained why I don't like it, acknowledged that the government website is a (surprisingly) good one, and explained why the others aren't. I don't have unlimited time here to comment on everything, and it was the change at this article that drew my attention to the matter. I suggest you restrict your comments to what is actually said, rather than implying inappropriate behaviour on my part. I would be interested in whether you think my comments on the other four sources were useful. I did put some thought into them. I would also be interested in what you think left means. HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hilo about simplistic labeling in infoboxes, although I do not think it is that big a deal. However to describe the Greens as simply "left wing" is not correct and that government document does not say that. It says they are a "left-wing and environmentalist party". So I'll accept "left-wing and environmentalist" but not just "left-wing". They are certainly not "left-wing" in the sense that the Socialist Alliance and several other parties are. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm also not crazy about the "left-wing" characterisation, less because of an absence of coverage in reliable sources, and more because it's so imprecise as to not really be appropriate for an encyclopedia. That the Greens meet some commonly understood, nebulous notion of "left-wing" seems (to me anyway) undeniable, but this is also true of the Socialist Alliance, Labor Left, and even the Australian Democrats, which have widely varying views on a number of issues. As such, so long as we use the more precise and descriptive categorisation "Green politics", "left-wing" seems to me to be unnecessary and somewhat redundant.  -- Lear's Fool 03:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

One Nation preferences content dispute

Nettle was elected in 2001 on the back of minor party preferences, in particular One Nation. Preferences do not necessarily indicate endorsement of one party to another, they simply flow as their ticket indicates. Where it mattered in her election, she got crucial preferences from One Nation. The fact that they preferences the Democrats with the Greens above the major parties is irrelevant. Their ticket flows as their ticket flows. I'm not sure why there is resistance to the content? Timeshift (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a secret ballot. How can you possibly know how preferences went? HiLo48 (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe because the Electoral Commission publishes the preference flows? See here (via Psephos). The One Nation candidate is excluded on the 64th count and over 85% of his preferences went to the Greens over the Democrats. Also, the number of people who voted above the line is given, so if people voted for One Nation above the line (as most of them did), we know exactly where their preferences went - to the Greens. Frickeg (talk) 07:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes it clearer. HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason for the sensitivity is that there were a string of attacks from the Democrats that there had been some sort of preference deal between the Greens and One Nation. Yes, the ON Group voting ticket had Greens ahead of Democrats and (as I recall) the ALP and Liberals too. But that was at the end of their list. Over 95% of voters number a box above the line, and their preferences follow the ticket of the party they selected. At the time the ON candidate was excluded there were just Greens and Democrat candidates left. This would be hearsay but I heard from people involved in the 2001 campaign that the reason One Nation put the Greens ahead of the others they liked least was that someone in the Greens party office was polite to them about putting them last when they rang to talk about preference issues, unlike the others they called. I think the wording is still a little simplistic, but maybe that can't be helped given the relative importance of the issue (slight) and the underlying complexity of senate preferences and associated deal making/accidents. Chrismaltby (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've got a source in which Andrew Bartlett says that ON put the Greens ahead of the Democrats because the Greens shared their opposition to the GST. I think you're probably right about simplifying the issue, which is unfortunate but can perhaps we dealt with in greater detail at the 2001 election page. Frickeg (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Marjuana Legalisation

In 'Political Ideology': 'Law reform: regulated use of cannabis for medical purposes.'

Checking the Greens' website, notably their policies: 'The Australian Greens do not support the legalisation of currently illegal drugs.' (http://greens.org.au/policies/care-for-people/drugs-substance-abuse-and-addiction)

Am I missing something else in this section, or on their website, or is this an outdated policy?

HandyAndy1.36 (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

First Greens party

The article claims the United Tasmanian Group is the oldest Greens party. The Global Greens site[1] seems to say it shares the honour with the NZ Values Party whose article makes the claim that it was the first. I figured it might be safest to call them both one of the first Greens parties. Perhaps this has been discussed before so I thought I should raise it here for discussion. --Brandonfarris (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism

Currently the Greens entry in Wikipedia is unbalanced. It largely documents the history, the structure, the policies, the achievements and provides information on Green politicians. The article-content would be assessed as neutral-to-positive. The current article does not accurately reflect that within the Australia community there is not necessarily universal support for the Greens or their policies. One of the manifestations of that lack of support is the level of Green electoral polling.

• Andrew Bolt is accepted within Wikipedia as a reliable source. (Googling "Andrew Bolt" within Wikipedia turns up 153 entries)
• The Herald Sun is a reliable source.
• The - words quoted - in the entry are incontestable. They are not my words, they represent a legitimate POV.
• It is disingenuous to label legitimate criticism as not NPOV.
• The inclusion is made AGF
• The proposed controversy and criticism is not of undue weight considering the current Greens Wikipedia entry contains 6,803 neutral-to-positive words and the proposed inclusion contains 70 words. 70 words represent approximately 1% of the article.

There is no objection to Green-promotional material being placed on the Greens' website. However, Wikipedia remains a public domain encyclopedia.

Unless I can be persuaded otherwise, I will replace the controversy and criticism entry, PM Thursday 29 March. HGH493 (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

HGH493, it's usual to wait for consensus to emerge before adding highly contested material like this. Neither Andrew Bolt nor the Herald Sun are necessarily reliable sources on matters relating to the Greens. Using them as the reason to add a new "Controversy and Criticism" section is also something that would need discussion and consensus. Such sections pose difficulties in themselves - what would be the criteria for adding items to one? As often as not they become a coat rack for any opinion critical of the page's subject. To avoid that problem the more usual method would be to add a subsection to a more relevant part of the page (policy?) and then report the issue and reaction to it more neutrally - Bolt's views are certainly not the only ones that might need to be considered in a neutral exposition of the issue. Chrismaltby (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi HGH. I'm afraid you've misunderstood the three relevant policies here. First and foremost anything written by Bolt for his personal blog is not and will never be a reliable source for our purposes. His blog exists explicitly to broadcast his personal opinions, and (inasmuch as it is mostly without editorial oversight) is substantially self published.

Secondly, the policy regarding undue weight says that topics and viewpoints should be covered roughly in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. Not only is Bolt not a reliable source for this purpose, but even if he was this specific issue has received basically no coverage elsewhere, and so giving it such a prominent place in this article would be totally inappropriate.

Thirdly, your idea of having x thousand words positive coverage and y thousand words negative coverage to achieve neutrality is exactly not how neutrality works here. If you have specific problems with existing passages, please point them out, but as Chris has said "Criticism" sections are generally an unacceptable solution to balance issues.

Finally, I would strongly advise you not to issue ultimatums in the way you have. If you re-add the passage without consensus, you will be reverted, and if you edit war, you may end up blocked. Please engage here instead.  -- Lear's Fool 05:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Anything written by Bolt for his personal blog is not and will never be a reliable source for our purposes. Wow! and who is 'our'? What is the breadth of this Bolt-exclusion? Further, if Wikipedia entries were to be accepted only if issues were available from two or more sources, that would dramatically shorten Wikipedia. There are thousands of controversy and criticism sections within Wikipedia. If you wish, I can direct you to a sample of them. Yes, it it is contestable whether criticisms go within (say) a policy section or be separated out. One reason for separating them is that embedded criticism might break the flow of the presentation. Another reason is that, at times, the matter might be broader and does not logically fit under a single (say) policy. The proposed inclusion here provides such an example. The 'criteria for adding' is the same irrespective of the positioning. The 'coat rack' argument is a red herring as irrespective of where the material is placed it faces the same Wikipedia protocols and tests before acceptance. HGH493 (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Anything written by opinion writers in their own personal opinion blogs does not satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. Pointing to the existence of other policy failures in order to justify another one is generally not considered a convincing argument (compare Wikipedia:Other stuff exists).  -- Lear's Fool 06:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The only time someone wants to add a criticism section to an article is when they don't like the subject of an article and want the article to reflect their POV. I could hardly put it any more plainly to highlight why criticism sections are almost always a bad thing. And I don't care what party we're talking about. HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Bolt slagging off at the Greens yet again on his blog is not notable "Controversy and criticism" (the same applies, of course, to pro-Greens bloggers slagging off at the Liberal Party). HGH493, please see WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Nick-D (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Old post I know, but anyway, none of the other Australia political parties have such a section so why would this one warrant it? Trex21 (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The Australian claiming a wanting to destroy the Australian Greens at the ballot box, and a lot of echoing statements by a range of conservative commentators, is what warrants it. If there's the significance and the sources, it's worthy of inclusion, as evidenced by the longevity of the contribution(s). Timeshift (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact that there are people whose views are at odds with a particular political party is hardly worthy of having a 'Controversy and Criticism' section devoted to it in my opinion. Trex21 (talk) 06:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

For every political party, there is a large section of the population whose views are at odds with them. That is not the same as Australia's largest circulating newspaper publicly expressing their wanting to destroy a political party at the ballot box. That's like saying (sorry to bring him in to this, but valid point) Hitler like everyone else has their adversaries. Uh, bit simplistic there wouldn't you think? Timeshift (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the one owned by Rupert Murdoch? Wikipedia is meant to be unbiased and you want to add the opinion of arguably the most biased newspapers in the country? Not really encyclopaedic, but that's just my opinion. If you want to place a mention of it into the article, I'm not stopping you Trex21 (talk) 06:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

PS, feel free to provide the link to the article stating that they "want to destroy the Australian Greens at the ballot box", I haven't been able to find it and I wouldn't mind checking it out.Trex21 (talk) 06:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It's just but one instance, not in itself a basis for the disputed section. Here's your requested ref, here's a reaction. Timeshift (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. My view of that particular article, being an editorial, is that it (the article in question, not the issue as a whole) shouldn't have much, if any weight in an article such as this given that it is essentially an opinion piece. As far as the issue as a whole goes, a section could be warranted if enough reputable articles can be located (IE not an un-named newspaper editor's political opinion-and yes I understand that it's probably the overall view of the editors of The Australian Newspaper). Having said that I would still likely oppose it being added to the article, that's just my view.Trex21 (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

What is criticism if not an opinion? Timeshift (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make (apparently not very well) is that an editorial of one un-named editor of one newspaper (albeit widely circulated) is not appropriate on a political party's Wikipedia page, particularly given that a similar section does not appear on any other major political party's Wikipedia page that I can find. These may not be the best examples, but remember the hullabaloo over the 'Carbon Tax'? It's not even mentioned on the ALP Wiki page. Remember WorkChoices? the whole controversy surrounding that is not mentioned on the Liberal Party's Wiki page. Trex21 (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

On the censorship of Bob Brown's Vision

The preference by contributors to present, within Wikipedia, The Australian Greens in favourable terms, is obvious. The removal of entries which give an impression of anything to the contrary displays an exceeding preciousness. Reasons for the noble censoring of 'undesirable' entries are verified by legalistic, but still POV interpretations. The Greens can publicise themselves all they like on their website. Wikipedia is degraded when it displays one-sided views of the world. Now, even the words of Bob Brown are censored.

As I said, Censoring - Greens leader (1) Senator Bob Brown and his 40 year's (2) magnum opus containing his (3) solutions for the future of our entire civilisation, for which he was met with a standing ovation - is presumptuous & disrespectful and Bob Brown's 40th anniversary speech was reported - in that form - by a significant number of Australian media outlets. It is a worthy Wikipedia inclusion.

Rather than simply simply deleting, how about you write an entry covering Bob Brown's vision, from that very significant 40 year anniversary Greens' meeting in Hobart. HGH493 (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It's one thing to report the speech giving it its due importance, and another to select a couple of negative media reports as the way to frame it on the page. At the least you'd want to try to quote from the speech in context rather than select a couple of grabs and claim they were a fair representation of the whole. I personally don't think that after-dinner style speeches of this kind are notable enough (say as compared to reporting an election result) to go on this page. They may be more appropriate on Brown's own page. Chrismaltby (talk) 06:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires externally published sources. You can’t use Green-sourced material, so why twice reference it? If you prefer another published source(s), please provide it. If you prefer a different set of words, please provide them. The statement, “I personally don't think that after-dinner style speeches . .” is contestable. To say the content is not, “notable enough” is dismissive of Senator Brown’s Green Policy initiatives. HGH493 (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC) There are a large number of media outlets covering this. There are plenty of available citations. The public interest is considerable. Deputy leader Christine Milne endorsed it as, "a very inspiring speech". All this is incontestable. Your approach is to keep deleting. Rather, write up this significant matter in your own words. HGH493 (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the discussion concluded ? HGH493 (talk) 07:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear HGH493 - I don't think we've reached a conclusion. The question of reliability of Brown's publication of a transcript of his speech is spurious. Read WP:SELFSOURCE for guidance here. It is important to avoid original research in using primary sources such as this, but if you're going to rely only on selective quoting from sources potentially hostile to the subject of the page, you will surely be running into POV problems. The tone of mock outrage rising from the use of the word "censorship" in the title of this section doesn't do much for your own objectivity on this topic.

Notability of events is not as clear cut as finding news reportage of them - see WP:NN. The lasting importance of this speech for the Australian Greens (or even Senator Brown) is yet to be determined. The issue seems to me to have been caught up in the political news cycle and will be wrapping fish and chips by now. If the newsworthiness of the story is dependent on the reaction of opponents of the Greens or Brown then it would be safe to say that that's not a very high bar. You need to do more to make the case than It would be useful to hear some other opinions on this topic before you reinstate the paragraph as it stood. Chrismaltby (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Greens' leader, Senator Bob Brown is advocating a new World Parliament and expressing his concern about the future of our civilisation. His Green supporters gave him a standing ovation. Christine Milne says he has made "a very inspiring speech". Are you suggesting any given Wikipedia entry can not be included until all issues resolve ? I do not believe the proposed entry is excluded by WP:NN . Following your interpretation this would will exclude all 'Vision' statements. If as you imply 'permanency' is the 'requisite-test', that would invalidate a large number of current Wikipedia entries. With respect, it is derogatory to characterise the response of (the many) commentators to the Australian Green leaders vision as (somehow being caught up in) the political news cycle and (that the matter, you suggest) will be wrapping for fish and chips. It seems to me, buried under the legalism of the various pro-Green responses above, one underlying theme is that any view presented by an 'opponent' can not be valid because that person is an 'opponent'. A second and related observation is that there does seem to be confusion, by some, between the role of the Greens website and the role of the Greens entry in Wikipedia. Censor (or stifle free-speech within - whatever term you prefer) Wikipedia - and this will result in a devaluation of Wikipedia as an recognised information source. HGH493 (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The opinions of political opponents are inevitably non-neutral points of view, and thus not acceptable here. The same applies to any biography of a living person. I, for example, believe that our article on John Howard is the blandest piece of non-critical garbage going around, but I know it's not going to change any time soon. That's just how things work here. HiLo48 (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing offered above which would preclude the publication of the paragraph in question in Wikipedia. Just publish it ! BartFremont (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

BartFremont - did you read the transcript of the speech (see above) which has also been printed in abridged form by The Age? Do you really think the proposed paragraph is a neutral summation of its content and importance? Why did neither of the quoted sources refer to paragraphs like these ones:

Plutocracy, rule by the wealthy, is democracy's most insidious rival. It is served by plutolatry, the worship of wealth, which has become the world's prevailing religion. But on a finite planet, the rule of the rich must inevitably rely on guns rather than the ballot box, though, I hasten to add, wealth does not deny a good heart. All of us here are amongst the world's wealthiest people, but I think none of us worship wealth to the exclusion of democracy.

We instinctively know that democracy is the only vehicle for creating a fair, global society in which freedom will abound, but the extremes of gluttony and poverty will not. Mahatma Ghandi observed, the world has enough for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed.

So what's it to be: democracy or guns? I plunk for democracy.

but instead set the call for global democracy outside this context or implied that the coining of neologisms like "Earthians" was a more important part of the speech? Chrismaltby (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Chrismaltby 'Outside this context'? Bob Brown's speech is titled, ‘Global democracy alone will save us from ourselves’. Please consider his salutation, his first-para-introduction and his last-para-summary. However, I do agree with you that your proposal would enhance this Wikipedia entry by (1) adding a link to The Age abridged speech and by (2) quoting the sources referring to the paragraphs which you wish to emphasise. HGH493 (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There is still nothing offered above which would preclude the publication of the paragraph in question in Wikipedia. Add Brown's Age speech and publish. BartFremont (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This is one of those ugly discussions that seems to start in the middle. There is no clear explanation of the topic. Maybe it's a continuation of some Edit summaries. It's hard to tell. It all seems to assume that everyone knows what's being discussed, which is just plain wrong. Can those wanting some change in the article clearly explain what they would like changed, with sources, and why? HiLo48 (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Below is the paragraph which has formed the basis for the discussion. It is readily available with citations, at Wikipedia Article as at 20:18, 29 March 2012.

On 23 March 2012, Senator Brown advocated that a new bicameral global parliament be established with, "equal representation elected from every nation". He said he would call on the world's 100 Greens parties to back his proposed world parliament. In the same speech, Senator Brown asked "fellow earthians" why life on other planets had not contacted us. He went on to suggest it was possibly because when life evolved on other planets, and became able to alter their environment, they did so with catastrophic consequences. He warned, "They have come and gone. And now it's our turn."

HiLo48 you asked, "Can those wanting some change in the article clearly explain what they would like changed, with sources, and why?". Prior to your latest questions, you have already, twice, participated in the Talk on this matter. Rather than responding in the format you suggest, I respectfully suggest, as it is more efficient for all, that you might examine the issues and responses above - starting at 04:05, 27 March 2012. HGH493 (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not even in this fucking thread! No wonder this reads like nonsense. (I finally realised how incoherent this thread was, hence my query.) How on earth do you expect people to comprehend this crap? I am not going to search for stuff that might be relevant to this discussion all over this fucking Talk page. You're the one who wants to add something. How about you tell us, in one simple post, exactly what you would like to add to the article, why, and what your sources are? Do not include other stuff, such as what you think of Brown, or other editors. Do not assume that people will search this whole page for other gems from you. Just the proposal, your reason, and your source(s). HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Setting aside your forms of expression, the terms Filibuster and Obfuscation come to mind. However, I will respond as you request, with the proposal, the reason and the sources. HGH493 (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed addition of Brown's speech re future civilisation and vision for a Global Parliament

1 The proposal The proposal is to add a paragraph in Wikipedia Greens covering this matter. The proposed paragraph would read:

On 23 March 2012, Senator Brown advocated that a new bicameral global parliament be established with, "equal representation elected from every nation". He said he would call on the world's 100 Greens parties to back his proposed world parliament. In the same speech, Senator Brown asked "fellow earthians" why life on other planets had not contacted us. He went on to suggest it was possibly because when life evolved on other planets, and became able to alter their environment, they did so with catastrophic consequences. He warned, "They have come and gone. And now it's our turn."

The paragraph appears to fit chronologically under the Heading 2010 election onward

I have requested Wikipedia editors to improve the wording, and/or add other sources. To date there has been no response to that request.

2 The reason This initiative of the (a) Australian Green's leader was (b) supported by Green's members (with a 'standing ovation' at a 'celebration of the Tasmanian Greens' 40th birthday'), and (c) is endorsed by the Green's deputy leader (as, 'a very inspiring speech'). It was (d) widely reported by the Australian MSM. The vision has been developed with view to (e) future civilisations. The Green leader's has proposed a (f) visionary response to the problem identified. As you will know, he is currently (successfully) advocating this bold Australian Green's intuitive in Senegal. It is a significant and notable situation.

Further background and explanations are available above - involving a number of contributors, extending over the last 7 days.

3 The sources The intended sources are :

Bob Brown, The Age: Global democracy alone will save us from ourselves: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/global-democracy-alone-will-save-us-from-ourselves-20120330-1w3s9.html

Amos Aikman, The Australian: Bob Brown's UN vision for the greening of the world: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bob-browns-un-vision-for-greening-the-world/story-fn59niix-1226308713373

Anne Mather, The Mercury: Bob sings up a party: http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2012/03/24/312341_tasmania-news.html

David Beniuk, Ninemsn: Greens celebrate 40 years of survival: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8440394/greens-celebrate-40-years-of-survival

HGH493 (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a lot clearer. But your section heading wasn't, so I changed it to what seemed clearer to me. Feel free to change it back if you really think it needs to be. I will think about that content. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That's fine - but keep in mind it is not simply a 'Brown's speech' but rather an 'Australian Green's policy proposal'. Refer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0FmFOGnf10 HGH493 (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• The proposal is now clearer, but I oppose it. His remarks may have been well received by members of his party, but I do not think they reflect policy. If they are added anywhere, it should be at Bob Brown, not here, and the discussion should be moved to Talk:Bob Brown. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bduke, and on undue weight grounds. This story is trivia which received a news cycle worth of coverage and then disappeared. It won't get a mention in any reputable history of The Greens, and it shouldn't get a mention here.  -- Lear's Fool 01:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

- Bduke - The proposed paragraph represents an important component in the narrative of the development of the Australian Greens in the period 2010 election onwards. Under that heading, is where it is proposed to go, along with the other equally significant information about the Greens history. Certainly - It does not belong under Recent policy positions. BTW It is Bob Brown who is advocating this as a 'proposed charter by the Australian Greens' at the Global Greens conference. Saying 'but I do not think' is obviously a contestable POV.

- Lear's fool - you might prefer to use another set of words rather than, 'this is trivia' and, 'it won't get a mention' (both POV) when you discuss these issues with Bob Brown, particularly as he says, 'we must defy pessimism.' refer http://bob-brown.greensmps.org.au/content/news-stories/bob-brown-delivers-3rd-annual-green-oration HGH493 (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Read WP:NPOV and tell me where it says that editors can't express a point of view on a talkpage (hint: it does not). And what do you mean "when you discuss these issues with Bob Brown"?  -- Lear's Fool 02:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Lear - Please re-read what I actually said rather than verballng me. Of course you can express your point of view here. In the same way Bob Brown, Christine Milne and the Green's supporters (noted above) can also express (a surprisingly similar) point of view, even if it is different to yours. That is all fine. Interestingly, in considering the current situation your, "This story is trivia . . . (right through to ) . . . and it shouldn't get a mention here" is nevertheless (apparently) your 'Wikipedia-entry-test' which is still based on your point of view.

I believe one test of your neutrality would be a Geoffrey Robertson type hypothetical. The Leader of The Nationals, Warren Truss held a meeting in the Gympie town-hall where he outlined his concerns about the future of life on the earth. He talked about possible degradation of life on other planets. He advocated a new Global Parliament as the solution to this issue. The crowd gave Truss a standing ovation. His deputy said the speech 'was inspirational'. The MSM picked it up. A Wikipedian thought this was notable and added the matter to the chronology of The Nationals. What would you do? [ *** It transpired later the Truss-speech was identical to a similar Brown-speech with the only difference being the words 'The Nationals' rather than the words 'The Greens']. HGH493 (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd delete as being less about Nationals' policy than about Truss, and suggest it be put in his article. HiLo48 (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've read those sources and looked the video (wow, that was painful). The speech in question was "the 3rd annual Green Oration". Looking here tells me that such speeches do not make Australian Greens policy. David Suzuki and Ingrid Betancourt, the other two presenters of this oration, are obviously not voting members of the Australian Greens. And that global conference video is just confusing. Anyway, again, it's not about the setting of Australian Greens policy. If this belongs anywhere it's in Bob Brown, not this article, and even then, it's one speech. Interesting, inspirational to some (I'm sure that was his goal), but hardly a radical view for Brown. Anyway, take it there if anywhere. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48 - As I keep saying, this is about The Greens chronological narrative. You keep verballing me, by saying that I am talking about Green Policy. Your comments starting at, "The speech is question . . . (right through to) . . . setting of the Australian Greens policy" is marginally interesting, but irrelevant here. The reference to David Suzuki and Ingrid Betancourt is absolutely irrelevant - a red herring. Time does permit exploring your significant 'hardly radical' statement. You obviously don't want the Green's Wikipedia entry in any way to acknowledge this - or anything else outside the approved Green 'theology'. And yet, it was you HiLo48 complaining on this very page about another Wikipedia entry as, "the blandest piece of non-critical garbage going around." There might be some who would view the current Wikipedia Greens entry in the same light. HiLo48 - I hope that you now appreciate, after your earlier interchange, that Australia is a great nation where we can have differences of opinion, without resorting to verbal abuse or worse. HGH493 (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Nah. You've lost me there. No idea what you're on about. It all seems very personal though. HiLo48 (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose on similar grounds to Bduke and Lear's Fool. Chrismaltby (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's credibility is compromised.

Contrasting Wikipedia entries on The Greens and the Australian Christian Lobby proves the bias of the site. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13833&page=0 114.73.114.9 (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Er, the bias of which site? The one you've referenced, maybe? :) I've removed your somewhat arbitrarily-applied template pending a proper discussion here. Bjenks (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Clicking on the link for the author's name of that "source" returns "John Miller is a happily married Christian." Is someone who makes his Christianity so much part of his public persona going to take an objective view on this? It's a blog post anyway, so unsuitable as a source for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the tag on the ACL page on the same grounds under which it was removed from here. The arguments in this online opinion site are laughable. The editor has completely ignored the fact that the only person who has been disciplined for vandalising the ACL wikipedia article identifies as Christian and has (possibly unintentionally) grossly violated wikipedia policy in their attempts to shift the tone of the article in favour of the ACL. The author also does not take into consideration that none of the top editors of the ACL article edit the Australian Greens article, so his comparison in itself is biased. Freikorp (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

An OLO comment which seems to sum up the situation. The motivations of the custodians of the Green and ACL Wikipedia sites were obvious after the publication of the above article in OLO. Firstly they removed any evidence of dispute from the Greens and ACL pages. Against the spirit of the Wikipedia Guidelines, which states: Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. However that removal was virtually predictable - refer to the futility of editing tags reference above. Like King Midas (sic) the Emperor and his lack of clothes, one editor decreed, despite the above, there is no dispute. They also said any opinion in OLO is not acceptable for Wikipedia, completely ignoring a prior Wikipedia determination to the contrary. Labelling the OLO article as 'laughable' represents other great intellectual insight enlisted to help resolve this problem. Another criticised someone who apparently removed some text within Wikipedia ACL. (pots and kettles come to mind) Further, the left-theologians deemed any contribution by a 'Christian' must be biased and therefore can not be accepted. While the comment noting that Wikipedia pages are updated by different authors, might represent a revelation to the statement's author, otherwise I am not sure of its relevance. In actually responding to the concerns raised, someone did fix two missing [citations needed]. While that is good he/she obviously did not read the OLO article and fixed the wrong citations.

That's it. Debate now over. Back to business-as-usual. The issue is not so much Wikipedia being corrupted. It is Wikipedia being used as propaganda. 42.241.205.134 (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

If you suggest, or make, changes to these articles which are not politically biased and supported by references to reliable sources it's pretty likely they'll remain in the article. Whinging about supposed "custodians" of articles and wicked "left-theologians" is about the most unhelpful thing you can do. If you'd like to improve the articles, give it a go. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Nick-D, I think you have missed, or tried to side-step, the most important issue raised in the above OLO article Wikipedia's credibility is compromised. Within the Australian community there are many criticisms of the Australian Greens - all published in 'reliable sources'. Approximately nine out of ten Australians do not vote for the Greens. Their reasons and concerns are well documented. Many authors/editors contribute to this Green's Wikipedia site. This Green's Wikipedia site, by any measure, provides an overly positive view of the Greens. Dare I say, those authors collectively appear to be confused between the role of encyclopaedias and Green-promotion. Dare I also say, Nick-D and your editor-friends need to start writing Wikipedia Greens from a NPOV. It is you - no one else - who is contributing to the corruption of Wikipedia. 42.241.215.160 (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The decline of Wikipedia is all my fault? Wow! Nick-D (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Nick, prove that 42.241.215.160 is wrong by pointing to any entry, or edit, which you have made showing anything which describes any Australian community (factual) concern regarding the Greens. Otherwise, sorry to tell you, but you are contributing to the corruption of Wikipedia. 42.241.158.54 (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Why are you now pretending to be different people? Your IP addresses trace to exactly the same ISP. Anyway, if you'd like to genuinely improve the articles, give it a go - this is the 'encyclopedia anyone can edit'. Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

There are countless criticism articles out there for Labor, Liberal, Green, and others. Just because something is in a reliable source, does not make it a automatically warranted for inclusion. There are many criterion. I'd say the Liberal/Labor/Green pages are all more positive than your standard news article out there, and that's because this is an encyclopedia that centres on facts rather than unquantifiable opinion. Approximately six out of ten Australians do not vote for the Coalition, and the same for Labor. Just because someone doesn't vote for a party as their first preference, does not mean they disapprove of them. And in a democracy, for a non-establishment party to climb to getting 13 out of every 100 Australians to vote for them represents a substantial demographic and is a big achievement - historically just like for the Democrats and the DLP. If you don't like the level of minor party representation here, i'd suggest you look at more minor party friendly parliaments overseas (almost all of them). I suggest you review your apparent bias that you've put forth. The link you put forth, despite seven out of ten Australians supporting gay marriage, says "Conversely, in the real-world, through our democratic processes, the Australian nation is poised to formally ratify ACL's position on marriage"... who's biased? Timeshift (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Timeshift you lost me somewhere between your democracy-by-percentages and democracy-by-parliaments. Same challenge as for Nick above, please point to any entry, or edit, which you have made showing anything which describes any Australian community (factual) concern regarding the Greens. Rather you may prefer adding a balanced encyclopaedic entry relating to one of the issues for which the Greens are being criticised. I can supply some alternative issues if you so require. 42.241.158.54 (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

If that lost you, then be on your way haha! Timeshift (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what "Australian community (factual) concern regarding the Greens" is? Does someone think some Australians are afraid of the political party? How is that going to be verified for starters? What are the exact fears? Are the members scary, is the ideology frightening? Maybe we should be documenting what the christian and family lobby say about the Australian Sex Party? How about listing all the concerns of the copyright industry on the Pirate Party Australia page? - Shiftchange (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Or even better, the concerns of the atheist community about the Family First Party! This really is ridiculous: if you think the article needs improving, improve it (from a neutral point of view, of course). Frickeg (talk) 09:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Arriving at a consensus

WP:CON does not say disputed material has to be removed prior to a consensus.

The proposed paragraph reads: In July 2012 tensions between the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens had deteriorated to the point where the Chief Government whip Joel Fitzgibbon said that the Green's policies are, "economically destructive". He mentioned a, "frustration that's been festering for some time".[72] Paul Howes, the National Secretary of the Australian Workers' Union raised further issues and referred to a, "grab-bag of loopy" Greens' policies.[73] Senator Doug Cameron criticised the Greens' approach to key policy areas and used the word, "intransigence" in relation to asylum seeker legislation. Immigration Minister Chris Bowen called the Greens, "naive".[74]

1 The above represents a POV - (not my POV) - a POV of senior Labor leaders reflecting deeper concerns, on a issue serious enough to undermine Government.

2 An unfamiliar reader of this page would be left with the clear understanding that all is working harmoniously with the Labor-Greens alliance. (References can be shown) This is distortion of the facts. In an encyclopaedia, how can that misrepresentation be justified?

3 The 'what-is-acceptable-rule' seem to be different for positive statements on this page. (References can be shown) Why is that?

4 Please, keep in mind and utilise the Wiki process of Consensus Building.

Appreciate responses to the above issues and/or provide an alternative entry. 42.241.175.118 (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

If a contribution, a change away from the status quo, is added, and is disputed, it requires consensus before it can be added, not the other way around. If it belongs anywhere, and not in the current language it uses, it might be Gillard Government. It might belong here, but in the current form, it violates various guidelines including NPOV, WEIGHT and BALANCE, and the contributor has almost breached WP:3RR. Timeshift (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Politicians from one party criticising the policies of another? Wow! Never seen that before. Let's stop being silly here. This simply isn't even real news, let alone encyclopaedic content. HiLo48 (talk) 05:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The preferences thing, if it actually happens, will warrant inclusion. Inter-party sniping? No. Frickeg (talk) 08:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Peter Whish-Wilson

Can someone find the right photo of him to add to Australian Greens#Federal? I can't find it :( Timeshift (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Added image. Seems that he likes to be seen B/W only :). --ELEKHH^T 08:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Melbourne by-election, Sydney by-election

Frickeg - That response is simply a POV. (1) Who exactly are "we" and what special authority do "we" have over the Greens Wikipedia site? (2) Does "we don't cover what "failed" to occur, only what did" spin for Greens success 'OK' Green non-success 'not to be reported' ? (3) Greens won a Federal seat. The accepted(?) Melbourne Wikipedia entry is for a state seat. In that entry there is no mention what-so-ever of a Federal seat ?? 42.241.66.160 (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is slanted. The Melbourne by-election and the Greens had a ton of media coverage, the Heffron by-election did not. They only got 19 percent of the vote at the last election, not 31 percent and on the TPP despite a Liberal candidate. Your contribution whilst welcome is not suitable. Thankyou for your time. Timeshift (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Use of photos of senators

The use of photos of all current Greens senators is extraordinary. No other political party page can I find places photos of each individual member. This is not an advertisment or photo gallery. If we don't do it for Labor, Liberals, Nationals, Family First or Katter's Australian Party why for the greens? This needs to be addressed. Welshboyau11 (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It's called free photos. Timeshift (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Didn't the Greens release the rights for the photos? If we can get the other parties to do that too, hooray. Having said that, I'm not entirely sure we actually need photos of every Green senator in this article. Just Milne (and Brown, obviously) should suffice. Frickeg (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Currently I do not find the article too cluttered with images, but if their numbers would grow significantly this would need to be reconsidered. A group photo would probably be a better option if available. --ELEKHH^T 23:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles need to be consistent. Katter's Australian Party or National Party of Australia don't have photos. And are we saying, if Labor or the Libs release photos for use, we will add all 70+ memebers? It's just bizarre and looks odd. Welshboyau11 (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

KAP should definitely have a photo of Bob Katter on there somewhere. The main problem, though, is that we don't have photos that we could use of most of those members; the Greens images are released under a different set of rights, from my limited understanding. So it's a moot point. (I think the Greens, as a minor party, are clearly an entirely different issue from Labor or Liberal.) A group photo would, as Elekhh said, be ideal; I still lean towards ten photos being a bit cluttered, but I'm not too bothered, to be honest. Consistency for consistency's sake, especially in an area so chronically underwritten, is not necessarily a virtue. Frickeg (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

For the other parties, if we could, we would. There is no need for this sort of consistency you refer to where we don't do something on one article because there's a current inability to do the same (obtain free photos) which is outside of wikipedia's control. Almost WP:OTHERSTUFF. Timeshift (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Political position

I note that this article, unlike the Liberal and Labor articles, is lacking a political position in the info box. If there is no objection, I would seek to describe the parties position as 'Left-wing' in line with other major Green parties such as Green Party of England and Wales, Green Party of the United States, Scottish Greens and Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand. I note the List of political parties in Australia article which describes the Greens as 'left-wing'. I have also located some reliable sources, such as the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/sys_gov.html. Welshboyau11 (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Left wing has been continually reverted for years (mostly by others) as it can be considered pejorative and is not necessarily true with green politics. Timeshift (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Left wing is just plain unhelpful. It means too many things to too many people. Obama is seen by many in the US as a raging leftie. And we must also remember that since Green parties began in Australia, simply saying Green should almost be enough of a definition. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Green politics is an ideology, not a political position. In line with wikipedia policies, I believe for consistency, and relying on the valuable Government source, I can make the edit. If it's good enough for the Liberal Party of Australia and the Australian Labor Party to be described with a poltical position, and other Greens parties worldwide, it's good enough for this article. Have a look at WP:PRECEDENT and WP:SOURCES. Welshboyau11 (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added several reliable sources including the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs and Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon. Welshboyau11 (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You can always find references to any opinion, and in politics will find plenty. Government sources are not neutral in this regard. The thing is that reducing a political party to a "left" or "right" label is so simplistic that I believe it is against Wikipedia's educational purpose. So I reverted your edits per previous consensus on this page (see previous discussion on this topic in the archived talk pages). If you wish to change the current infobox please find consensus here first. --ELEKHH^T 22:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What about Senator Rhiannon? Is she being biased too? Why is it OK for other major Green parties such as Green Party of England and Wales, Green Party of the United States, Scottish Greens and Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand? Why is it ok for the Australian Labor Party to be described as 'centre-left' and the Liberal Party of Australia to be described as 'centre-right'. There is consensus. The consensus is in every other major political party in Australia and every other Green Party in the world. Why are people so allergic to the tag left-wing? I also find it laughable you are claiming the Deapartment of Foreign Affairs and biased and in collusion with the ABC and Greens Senator Rhiannon. Welshboyau11 (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that adding "Left-wing" is unhelpful, simplistic and against Wikipedia's educational purpose. We have been right to keep it out in the past. What about Senator Rhiannon? She is left-wing, but is not typical of the broader opinion in the Green's. She illustrates why it not appropriate to add it. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is addressing this point fairly: Why is it OK for other major Green parties such as Green Party of England and Wales, Green Party of the United States, Scottish Greens and Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand? Or this point: Why is it ok for the Australian Labor Party to be described as 'centre-left' and the Liberal Party of Australia to be described as 'centre-right'. There is consensus. The consensus is in every other major political party in Australia and every other Green Party in the world. Why are people so allergic to the tag left-wing? Why are the Australian Greens treated differently. Welshboyau11 (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I also refer to the Wikipedia page Left-wing politics which says 'In politics, the Left, left-wing, and leftists are people or views which generally support social change to create a more egalitarian society. They usually involve a concern for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities'. This describes the Greens perfectly. The page also says 'the term (left-wing) was applied to a number of revolutionary movements...including green politics'. The Greens are clearly to the left of Labor, which is described as 'centre-left'. Welshboyau11 (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

We have a choice here. We can weigh up all the evidence and the precedents with fairness and impartiality. Or we can ignore the rules of wikipedia, the sources, common sense and precedent, and I'll have to look at other dispute resolution options. Welshboyau11 (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Every source I find, including the ABC, Greens MP's and even the Dept of Foreign Affairs are ignored. But I live in hope. So here are some other sources:

• http://www.actnow.com.au/Opinion/Whats_the_difference_between_left_and_right_wing.aspx
• http://ldp.org.au/quiz/ozparties.html
• http://www.skynews.com.au/politics/article.aspx?id=785779

Welshboyau11 (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

See my earlier post re Obama being descried as a leftie by his enemies. It's far too often a gegatively emotive rather than an objectively descriptive term. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not relevant. I am not enrolled to vote in Australia, but when I voted in Wales last year, I voted for Plaid Cymru, a party which is described on it's wikipedia page as 'left-wing'. Shock horror. Look at all the evidence and precedent above. That cannot be ignored becasue you feel 'left-wing' is an 'insult'. (Since when?)Welshboyau11 (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a compromise, how about we agree with the Left-wing change backed up by the reliable sources, and then you guys go and change all the other Green parties pages and all the Australian parties pages, them remove left-wing from here.

Here is a list of changes needed: remove 'left-wing' as Politcal position on these pages: Scottish Greens Green Party of England and Wales Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand Green Party of the United States Plaid Cymru Scottish National Party Respect Party Sinn Fein and countless other pages Then remove polical descriptions of 'centre-left' and 'centre-right' from these pages: Australian Labor Party Labour Party (UK) Liberal Party of Australia National Party of Australia Conservative and Unionist Party Deal? Welshboyau11 (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There are several issues here. First, what happens on other articles is not really important. We are talking about the Australian Greens. Second, there is a significant group of editors who dislike simple labels in infoboxes and the like, as these simplify what is often a complex situation. Those editors seem to predominate among the editors of this article. Third, terms like "centre-left" and "centre-right" are pretty broad terms, while "left-wing" is not. The only term that I think really describes the Australian Green in "green". Finally. I note that you have only been on wikipedia for a few days. I suggest that it is best if you do not get into big arguments, but keep a low profile while you learn how things work. It is a very complicated place and even after 6 years it confuses me sometimes. We work on consensus and I do not think you are obtaining that. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

What happens on other articles is vitaly important. It is consensus. It sets a precedent for how things are done. Particulary with other Green parties affiliated to the Global Greens. Green politics surrounds the environment. To say that is the only issue of the Greens is absurd, and not in good faith. Issues that are significant to the greens include gay marriage, refugee rights, welfare and disability rights and a fairer society. These issue are not 'green politics'. These are left-wing issues. Please see the Left-wing politics article - this describes the Greens incredibly well. I am trying hard to obtain consensus. I have spent a considerable amount of time finding good, reliable sources. I refer to the WP:CON page. It says 'Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all'. That is exactly what I have been doing. I have tried to persuade others. I have used reasons based in policy. I have used sources. I have used common sense (when every other article is on your side, I think I have a powerful case). Please try to look at this. Look at the sources. Look at the precedent. Examine other articles. Read my comments. Welshboyau11 (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Welshboy, why is it that you think you can tell everyone else how an article should be changed and insist that it be changed to that? Go nuts on talk as much as you like but try not to be on the wrong side of edit wars with various editors over various articles. Timeshift (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't threaten me. I have the facts on my side. Welshboyau11 (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Where did I threaten you? Being a fact is far from the necessary criterion for inclusion - if that were the case, wikipedia would be a repository for laundry lists of anything and everything ever citeable. But it is irrelevant when you're on the wrong side of edit wars with various editors over various articles. Timeshift (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been in 'edit wars'. I have never edited without sources, or without trying to bring it to a talk page to discuss. Welshboyau11 (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I have decided to refer this to the Neutral Point of View noticeboard. Timeshift you are on the record on your user page with attacks against the Liberal Party of Australia and Conservativism.

Why not accept the self description by Green Parties world-wide. Die Gruenen in Germany states that "we are neither left nor right, we are just ahead!" There are many small l liberals who came across from the Democrats who support the Greens. The Australian Democrats were originally a "centre" party, but by the time of their demise, the ALP had become so conservative that Democrats were considered "left". Australian politics has moved so far to the right, that Whitlamite Labour would now be considered "radical left". John D. Croft (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Australian Greens. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Welshboyau11 (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This has been archived to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 35#Australian Greens. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I have proposed an edit to the Australian Greens page. I propose to add a Political position in the infobox, as is standard with Wikipedia political party entries. The Australian Greens are the third largest party in Australia, and hold 1 seat out of 150 in the Australian House of Representatives. The other seats are held by the Liberal Party of Australia, the Australian Labor Party, and the National Party of Australia. Each of these articles contains a politcal position. The Liberal Party of Australia is described as 'centre-left'. The other two parties are described as 'centre-right'. The Greens have various policies that would fit into the Left-wing politics category. These include gay marriage, a 40% pollution cut by 2020, voluntary euthanasia, opposition to the Iraq and Afghanistan war, abolition of the Monarchy of Australia, cuts in funding for private schools, free University education for all, free health and dental care for all, compulsury student unionism, abolition of private health insurance rebate, increase access to abortion, increased public housing, no mandatory detention of asylum seekers who arrive by boat, an end to the Pacifc Solution, end the Northern Territory emergency response, increased multicultural programmes, gay adoption, establish intersex as a gender, increased restrictions on the media; particulary News Limited, increased social security, a stronger line on Israel-Palestine, increase overseas aid and increased rights for unions. These policies are all available on www.greens.org.au/policies. Some are available in the Wikipedia article.

The Wikipedia article on Left-wing politics notes 'In politics, the Left, left-wing, and leftists are people or views which generally support social change to create a more egalitarian society. They usually involve a concern for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities'. This describes the Greens perfectly. The page also says 'the term (left-wing) was applied to a number of revolutionary movements...including green politics'. The Greens are clearly to the left of Labor, which is described as 'centre-left'.

I also note that other Green parties around the world, affiliated to Global Greens such as Green Party of England and Wales, Green Party of the United States, Scottish Greens and Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand are described on their articles as 'left-wing'. I have also found the following sources that describe the Greens as left-wing:

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/sys_gov.html Act Now http://www.actnow.com.au/Opinion/Whats_the_difference_between_left_and_right_wing.aspx Oz Parties http://ldp.org.au/quiz/ozparties.html Sky News http://www.skynews.com.au/politics/article.aspx?id=785779 http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3812920.html Article by Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4156564.html http://overland.org.au/previous-issues/issue-199/feature-tad-tietze/ There are very few political party pages on Wikipedia (if any) that don't have a political position. I have tried to discuss this issue, but have not received many helpful comments. A lot of stonewalling. Please help me.

One of the users involved, Timeshift is also a vocal critic on his user pages of conservatives and the Liberal Party of Australia. I am actually a supporter of the left-wing Plaid Cymru party in Wales. I am just trying to approach this fairly and with consistency Welshboyau11 (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I think that it's very relevant to describe the ideology of a political party. When an article is long enough (like this), it needs a separate section describing their stance on each relevant topic. The bullet list I see now seems to cover these aspects, although I won't check if these stances are true or if some are missing.

As Bduke said above, "left-wing" and "right-wing" are very broad terms. Actually, in countries like mine they are useful to describe sides, but not ideology. It's better to use more concrete ideologies like liberal, green, conservative, socialist and anarchist. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say both "left-wing" and "green" apply here. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI that the user who started this off has been perm banned - they were a sock. Timeshift (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Greens/Centre-left

I noticed this has been brought up before in this talk page although the discussion there seems to have been brief and I'm unsure what the OP was actually proposing. I believe that in the current climate to categorise the Greens as centre-left (comparable to the ALP) is inaccurate. Policies advocated by the Greens such as enforcing laws to disallow what it perceives as hate speech by figures such as Andrew Bolt and changing adoption laws to prevent what it claims is an ongoing second stolen generation are not ones that are by and large advocated by or similar to ALP policies. While I personally agree that the label left-wing is too broad on its own, this can be supplemented by the labels such as environmentalism and, potentially, social justice. Alternatively the label can be removed altogether as it is already described by its ideology, green politics. trainsandtech (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Update - given the previous debate around this and what I see as a majority of people supporting the remove of the "centre-left" label, I will do it myself on Friday unless objected to in this thread. Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times before, with the result always being that the position field should be removed from the infobox entirely, which I have now done. It causes nothing but endless arguments and is clearly debatable, and is best described in detail in the text. Frickeg (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Good idea, this debate is tedious in the extreme. Bacondrum (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Trainsandtech: putting up the change for discussion for three minutes is not gaining consensus by any measure. Me personally, I think they're closer to the small L liberals in the Liberal Party...but, what you and I think of them is irrelevant. All you've done is complain about the Greens. Show me a policy of the Greens that you think is left of Labor and I'll show you a similar or identical one from Labor - even on border security the ALP SL faction wants the same policy as the Greens. As for "laws to disallow what it perceives as hate speech by figures such as Andrew Bolt" Labor already introduced those under Whitlam in 1975, it's called the Racial Discrimination Act and Andrew Bolt has already been charged under these laws - don't you remember that? It was a very controversial case. The NSW Greens have condemned the Liberal NSW governments proposed forced adoption laws, so what? Those laws are never going to happen, they've been done before and have been a national shame ever since - these kinds of laws were done away with by Labor and Liberal governments in the 80's. Both major party's have issued apologies for similar laws - Former Liberal WA leader Colin Barnett apologised for forced adoptions in 2010, SA Labors Jay Weatherill apologised for similar laws in 2012, as did NT Labors Katy Gallagher. NSW Liberal Barry O'Farrell and VIC Liberal Ted Baillieu also apologised for forced adoption in 2012. and Gillard made a national apology for similar laws in 2013. It's not policy and if forced adoption becomes state government policy Labor will also oppose it as they have in the past, Gillard gave a national appology for an almost identical policy. So the Greens condemning a proposal to reintroduce similar laws is hardly controversial or evidence of a creeping Stalinist state, it's an ill thought out proposal on NSW Libs behalf, a thought bubble. The Greens are mainstream show us some evidence that they are left of center, not just that you think they're a pack of commies.Bacondrum (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

PS Labor are technically further left than the Greens. The ALP constitution states that: "The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields". The Greens don't make any claim to an ideology other than environmentalism. They do claim to have four core values: ecological sustainability, social justice, grassroots democracy and peace and non-violence - by any objective measure this puts the ALP firmly to the left of the Greens.

In a modern context the ALP largely favours the free market. Also the Greens is not a single issue party and has policies regarding numerous topics. trainsandtech (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You got any particular policy of the Greens that you think is left of Labor? The ALP is a democratic socialist party, that's a fact, it's in the constitution, it always has been democratically socialist. The ALP base is union, the party has more communist members than any other party, I personally know some Trots who are members of the ALP. the Greens base was drawn from the centrist Democrats after their demise, the party's base is middle class, tertiary educated...it's lead by a conservative doctor from the upper class town of Mt Macedon. Seriously, if the Greens are left of center then actual leftists have no room on the political spectrum, it's unrealistic...to call them anything more than a run of the mill middle class mainstream center left party is extreme hyperbole. When all is said and done, you can think they are radical leftists or whatever you want, but you'd be well off the mark. Bacondrum (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Practically every single Greens industrial relations policy is to the Left of Labor. They also call for the socialisation of housing, the establishment of a ‘people’s bank’, as well as the nationalisation of energy. These are all positions that put the Greens to the Left of Labor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geelongite (talk • contribs) 00:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

"Practically every single Greens industrial relations policy is to the Left of Labor"

Keep telling yourself that if you want, but the difference between the two parties on industrial relations is negligible - other than the minimum wage being set at 60% of the adult median wage - which seems like a bit of a brain fart on the Greens behalf, rather than serious policy making. Different, but further left? I don't think so, and I can't find a credible source that would back that assertion. Nearly all ACTU affiliated trade unions back Labor, that means nearly all unions back Labor, why would they back a more conservative industrial relation policy over a more progressive one? They wouldn't, obviously. The ALP has a similar policies on the whole.

"They also call for the socialisation of housing"

Just not true! The Greens have called for the existing socialised housing stock to increased by 80,000 (currently 396,100 out of the current 9 million houses, that would make it 476,100 or 5.2%, up from 3.5%), not radical at all, especially keeping in mind that social housing stocks are not keeping pace with household growth and are currently at their lowest level in 40 years. The Greens have not called for the socialising of housing, that is 100% false. Besides, the Liberal party (United Australia Party as it was called at the time) introduced the first and by far the largest socialised housing scheme in Australian history, does that make them far-left? The problem with your reading is that political reporting in this nation has gone so far to the right that it obscures reality, almost completely - Look at comparable nations: compare Australia's 3.5% public housing stock with conservative old Denmark which has around 20% social housing or France with it's 46% social housing. Not radical or particularly left by any reasonable measure. The ALP has a similar policy.

"establishment of a ‘people’s bank’"

We already have one, it's called the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, founded under Labor. Again, not radical and not particularly left, plus it would simply be an arm of the already existing Reserve Bank of Australia, which it could be argued is a "people's bank", and was also founded under Labor. The Commonwealth Bank was also a publicly owned bank once upon a time. The following countries all currently have "peoples Banks": Argentina, Australia, India, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Malaysia, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Spain and the USA hardly radical leftist nations...notice Cuba is missing? That's because it's more complicated than Rupert Murdoch makes it out to be. The ALP has previously enacted similar policy, the only party in this nation to have ever done so. Bacondrum (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I personally can't stand the Greens, but making it out like they are radical socialists simply reveals your bias. They are a mainstream centrist party by any reasonable measure. Their conservative detractors and hipster supporters are the only ones who think they are radical leftists IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm amazed that you call Richard Di Natale conservative. trainsandtech (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You don't have to be right-wing to be conservative. What's so radical about Greens policy, You got any particular current policy of the Greens that you think is left of Labor policy? Bacondrum (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Didn't think you could name one. Claims that the Greens are radical leftists are nothing more than right-wing hyperbole.

I personally call 'em leftist, like they call for public ownership of essential services (https://greens.org.au/platform/public-ownership), affordable housing (https://greens.org.au/platform/homes), free TAFE and uni, expanded Medicare, and an increase on Newstart and Youth Allowances (https://greens.org.au/platform/services). They're also in favour of greater equality among the genders, races, refugees and existing citizens, the disabled and the non-disabled, LGBTIQ+, etc. (https://greens.org.au/platform/equality), which sounds leftist to me, as the left is meant to be all about equality.

I'm not saying they're far left, but I'd argue left of Labor. It is true Labor is meant to be democratic socialist, but they've gone from that to social democrat (e.g. the free uni and Medicare they introduced in the 70s and 80s qualify as social democratic) and moving ever closer to the centre. It's sort of like Russia and how they're meant to be a democracy, when in reality most call them anything but a democracy. Also like how Australia is meant to be a fully secular country, yet oddly our constitution still mentions "Almighty God", and until recently we had a marriage law that only recognized marriage between two people of opposite genders, which one could argue was based entirely on religious attitudes. What is meant to be isn't always what happens.

If I do have a bias here, it'll be in favour of the Greens and not in favour of painting them as radical leftists. They're not advocating the abolition of capitalism, which is what radical leftists often advocate, they're merely advocating a stronger social safety net, to make the playing field between those born into wealth and those born into poverty more level. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 00:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I hear you, but I almost completely disagree. Labor did legislate free tertiary education, they did legislate universal healthcare, they did end conscription, Labor legislated the 888, Labor legislated the arbitration courts, legalised homosexuality, land rights, universal suffrage, ended the White Australia policy etc etc...the Greens have progressive policy, good on em. But they are no further left than Labor. The Greens are essentially the Democrats 2.0 and are slightly to the left of Malcolm Turnbull in my opinion. I guess this debate illuminates the issue here, the Greens are pretty moderate and mainstream by world standards, but Australians often see them as radical - from my point of view they are left of Labor in some ways, bourgeois and small L Liberal in others, I'd describe them as centrist or center-left, but by the standards of the Australian right, they are borderline communist revolutionaries, ready to release the red terror. I agree 100% that painting them as radical leftists is total and absolute rubbish. Bacondrum (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

While I respect your opinion, mate, as you seem like a well-educated person with well-reasoned opinion and I do appreciate your manners (as I know these politics-related discussions can get heated), the thing you've got to remember about those Labor policies is that they are from decades ago, which is what I mean, they used to be far more leftist than they are today. When Labor was in power in the late '00s and early '10s they didn't try to reintroduce free tertiary education, or expand, to any significant extent, on welfare. They've become much more moderate over time. I suspect a large part of the reason is fear of being blamed for starting another recession (you could argue they were in part what saved us from the GFC) and the desire to get into power more often and stay there for longer (keep in mind that the centre-right parties of the Coalition and their predecessors have been in power most years between federation and now, so clearly Aussies favour the right over left, on average). Plus, it could be the desire to placate big donors, if the Greens are right and they are being bought off by big business. The Greens are essentially advocating many of the same policies as Labor did in the '70s and '80s.

Their position on the left-right axis is really dependent on your answer to the question "Where is social democracy on the left-right axis?" If you think it is left, then that's where the Greens are, if you think it is centrist, or centre-left, that's where the Greens are. I've heard people call it centrist, but I'd call it leftist, as social democracy is a measure designed to promote greater equality, not as extreme of equality as communists call for, so not as left as they are, but still greater equality, which to me is still left. This is my left-right axis:

Communists, anarchists and democratic socialists (far left) → Social democrats (old school Labor and modern-day Greens) (left/centre-left) → modern Labor and Centre Alliance (centre) → Economic liberals or moderate nationalists (Coalition) (centre-right) → Lasseiz-faire capitalists and not so moderate nationalists: One Nation/KAP/UAP (right) → white supremacists, fascists and other extreme nationalists (far right). Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 05:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Labor did those things the Greens did nothing but make it impossible for our only female PM and handed Abbott government, now it’s not just the Libs putting up blocks at every turn, we’ve got the Greens wedging the union movement too. As to left and right, again it’s the same problem. I’d go from far left to far right: anarchist, communist, socialist, dem socialist/labour movements, Greens parties, small L liberals, neo libs, conservatives, capitalists, fascists. These kinds of debates are pretty subjective on the whole Bacondrum (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Never heard what you've spoken of, care to share some reliable sources? Green's official position is in favour of unions, if anything, (https://greens.org.au/qld/policies/industrial-relations) they could have been against a specific Labor policy regarding them, instead favouring a different solution that still involves strengthening unions, that doesn't necessarily mean they're against unions. When did the Greens try to stop Labor from trying to re-introduce free tertiary education and expanding welfare? (If I'm reading your reply correctly) It is possible to oppose a specific bill on a topic, due to technical details one disagrees with, but not oppose the idea behind it. I suppose this might be getting off-topic, but I agree that this is subjective, I was just trying to show the spectrum as it puts things into perspective, so we could see where we each place the different ideologies, and maybe find some common ground and thereby perhaps resolve this conversation. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 06:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Nah, I'm just discussing the topic. There's already been a decision on this - no political position at all, it's too contentious and will be debated endlessly. The article establishes their position anyway, the reader can decide. Happy to debate it though. Bacondrum (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I've added in a 'citation needed' tag. This is a request to verify the veracity of the claim that they are indeed "left wing" or "center-left" as it currently states. As it stands, this has obviously changed at some point in the last 6 years from "left wing" to "center-left" yet the party policies are much the same over this period. blah (talk) 11:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

To be explicitly clear, your persistent "citation needed" tags are being removed because, by definition (as with any political party ideology), it's not something that can be authoritatively answered with a specific source: there will be some sources that use some language, and other sources that use different language, so no single "citation" can clarify anything. The only way this can ever be resolved (for any political party) is for editorial consensus as to what language to use based on a body of sources, which requires anyone who disagrees with what's there to actually explain what, in fact, their problem with that is. I'm not strongly wedded to any particular language, but given the above quandary, the disinterest in explaining why they disagree with the status quo and what they would prefer, and the culture-war editing history of the user responsible, it has the appearance of plain old boring edgelord trolling attempts and will be reverted as such. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it'd be prudent instead to just remove the mention of its centre-left position, just like has been done w.r.t. the infobox. It's proven controversial, so maybe it'd be better to simply remove its mention, and let the reader make up their own mind on its political position. Many of its policies are social democratic, so I've been tempted to add that to the infobox, but because of how controversial I expect that to be (with many people likely arguing that they're socialist instead) I haven't. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 07:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

We haven't done that for the ALP and the Liberal Party, and the "how right/left wing are they?" arguments apply equally in those situations. I'm not unsympathetic to your argument (I supported the infobox removals because of the perennial infobox wars) but I don't think we well serve readers by removing any mention whatsoever of where they sit on the political spectrum from the article when the crucial bits of that aren't in dispute in each case, only the nuances (no one is arguing that the Greens aren't on the left). It's very confusing to foreign readers if you have to read deep down in the weeds of a policy section to work out what side of politics a party is on - for example, it would confuse the bejesus out of international readers that our Liberal Party is our conservative party, and not mentioning that PHON is on the political right at all (to avoid right/far-right arguments) makes that article's lead's attempts at explaining who they are much less clear to an uninformed reader. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

It took a bit to get you actually discussing it. I ask that you abide by Wikipedia's policies and stop your insults against me. No, you remove my edits because you don't want a "citation needed" tag there and you believe you are the authority that determines what needs a citation or not. It can literally be answered authoritatively from specific sources. There will be contemporaneous sources that offer good analysis as to the party's political ideology. If you have extensively researched this and can support your argument - put it here. Since you believe that it requires multiple sources as citation then you admit it does in fact need a citation. There is nothing stopping anyone putting all of them here. This is an encyclopaedia, if there is academic analysis which disagrees as to their ideology, then that is put in with citations. Put the tag back in to alert someone with the time to research it to put the citations in. Your and any other editors opinion of where they lie on the political spectrum - sans evidence - is irrelevant. Additionally, since you believe there is not consensus then why should it be left at "centre-left"? Why not "right", "left", or "center"? Since you believe there is no consensus, remove it entirely as is proper for statements without any basis. blah (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

No, it can't: as with every other political party in existence, there are contemporaneous sources offering good analysis that differ in the exact language they use to determine party ideology. There is no definitively authoritative source on exactly which flavour of left the Greens or the Labor Party are, or which flavour of right-wing the Liberal Party or PHON are: that is why we have (if it is disputed) we need to come to a consensus, and that requires talk page discussion as to the language in which sources one chooses to adopt. And since you refuse to engage in that discussion whatsoever, explain why you have a problem with the current wording, or suggest preferred alternative wording, and you have an editing history that is all culture-war topics, I and anyone else here are perfectly entitled to treat this as boring old edgelord trolling. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been raised in the extensive discussion above, but is there actually a Wikipedia policy that demands that we find a place for parties like the Greens on what is really an archaic, simplistic, purely linear spectrum that was invented long before such parties came into existence, and on which they really don't fit? HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

"since you refuse to engage in that discussion whatsoever" - I'm glad you wrote that - it gives me the opportunity to point out I engaged you in discussion, as is evidenced by the history here and in the edits where I pointed you to the discussion page. I'm glad you reused my language to admit there are in fact "contemporaneous sources offering good analysis". By definition they will use different language, I'm confused as to why this is a problem for you. If there are multiple sources for citation that don't agree then that is what is written, i.e. "experts can't agree on the position on the political ideological spectrum that the Greens sit" or something like that - with citations. I've explained multiple times why I have a problem with the current word - I have a problem that it is not verified and without evidence, "far-right" could be equally as valid as "centre-left". Now, on the other hand, you didn't answer my questions which I'll repeat. Why should we leave it as "centre-left", or moreover, why should we leave it in at all when there is no evidence to support the assertion? It's nice you believe my editing history is "all culture-war topics" but that is not true. You have camped on this page and undid a valid edit asking for a citation. Not some controversial edit that say, changed it to read "the Greens are extreme right fascists". Just a simple edit asking for a citation to keep the content encyclopedic. And you reverted it. I think it is obvious who is "boring old edgelord trolling". I await an answer to my question in the discussion that you have begrudgingly entered into. Cheers. blah (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Good question HiLo48. The spectrum is archaic and political parties are unlikely to fit on it in any meaningful manner. I doubt there is a Wikipedia policy demanding it be included. Someone felt the need to set the position and now some people are defending this edit. The political spectrum position should either be justified with evidence or removed entirely. The only untenable position is to leave it in its current contentious and unverified state. blah (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

You haven't engaged in any discussion: we still don't know why you disagree with the current language (behind the missing fantastical source that would authoritatively and indisputably determine where a party fits on the political spectrum, which doesn't exist here just as it doesn't exist for the ALP or the Liberals or PHON or the Republicans or the Democrats or any other party on earth) or what alternatives you might prefer besides removing any mention of party ideology, which makes the article pointlessly vague. I'm not wedded to "centre-left", I'm just resolutely opposed to troll-tagging without any helpful discussion. As for HiLo48: the lede should reasonably describe to a reader what, in fact, the party believes in and where they fit into the scheme of things, preferably without having to list every single policy position in the lead section. I'm pretty open to alternative language but I don't think removing any clarity altogether about their political position for the sake of avoiding argument among editors does any our readers any service. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The obvious summary description of the Greens' policy position is Green politics. HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Green politics is about as helpful as libertarianism: there are colossal differences between different Green parties ranging from the hard left to the centre-right. Sustainable Australia vote very differently from the Greens in Australia, and internationally parties like the Ecologist Green Party of Mexico, Ecological Democratic Party, Green Party of Hungary and Greens Greens. I'm open to alternatives to placing them on the political spectrum, but the lead section needs to in some way explain where the party fits into the scheme of things ideologically: just removing that because it avoids editorial arguments on our end makes articles largely incoherent to anyone who's not already familiar with the party. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I literally started the discussion with you so it's rich to suggest I "haven't engaged in any discussion" - it's in the history above. You wrote why I don't agree with the current wording (but you couldn't help but try and distort it, lol), i.e. it is an unverified assertion, which is not encyclopedic content. This is a disservice to anyone reading it much more than leaving it out or pointing out that it needs verification. I never suggested it needed to be "authoritatively and indisputably" clear, so I don't know why you wrote this. I said contention among sources is fine and that this should be reflected in the wording of the article with a list of multiple sources. You can actually see me stating this right above these last few comments which leaves me boggled as to why you would purposely misconstrue what I wrote. Removing the unverified assertion doesn't make the article "pointlessly vague", it simply leaves it undefined. Undefined does not equal vague. For your own sake, please stop suggesting edits not made by you are "trolling", it's ironic to the extreme. They're not "our readers" and this is not 'your article'. You might need to reassess your relation to Wikipedia. Now, you still haven't answered my question. It's great that you're "not wedded to 'centre-left'" but why should we leave it as "centre-left" when there is no source to suggest they are centre-left? Leaving it as something that is possibly untrue (we don't know since it isn't verified) is a lot worse than pointing out it isn't verified or leaving it out altogether. There is objectively no academic integrity in the current wording and you are supporting this. Asking for a citation or removing it isn't to avoid editorial arguments - it is to give clarity and academic integrity. The position of other greenish parties has no bearing on this article - they need to be addressed in a similar way but separately. blah (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

That last response is literally the first time you've given any indication as to what you might actually prefer be in the article besides troll-tagging it and pretending it's something that could be authoritatively sourced. The ranting about "academic integrity" is nonsense: there's several ways it could be described (just as for any other political party), and I could find sources for all of them, but I'm opposed to picking token sources simply because it might shut people up: since I could've found the same quality of sources for any of the alternatives, it would add no "clarity or academic integrity" whatsoever, and bothering to do so would give into the inevitable next step of trolling in arguing that any given source wasn't authoritative enough. So, assuming you're acting in good faith and now you've raised the possibility that you might actually discuss a solution, you've indicated that "contention among sources is fine and that this should be reflected in the wording of the article with a list of multiple sources". How might the wording of the article reflect that, in your view? The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

No, it's about the 4th time. I'm nothing if not consistent. I never said it could or should be "authoritatively sourced" - stop making stuff up. It's not "ranting" about academic integrity when someone points it out in a single 15 word sentence. You should check yourself if you think that is "ranting". Yes, there are several ways it could be described and I'm glad you could find sources for all of them - but nobody asked you specifically to do this. What I am asking is that it be tagged as "citation needed" so that people are aware that the given assertion has no verifiable source, and that if they want to do the work to add it, then they can (and that can be you if you want to do it). This is what the "citation needed" tag is for. Alternatively, we should delete the unverified assertion to avoid ambiguities and the possible spread of misinformation. If someone decided to do this work and added some sources then it would add both academic integrity (the claim will be a verifiable claim) and make the article clearer - since the article will reflect one or more analysis of the Australian Green party versus the current unverified opine of a random editor. I'm not going to answer your last question. I don't want to do that edit so I'm not going to suggest wording for it. For now I want to tag it as "citation needed" or remove it. I've made this very clear multiple time. Why should it stay as "center-left" if as you've said, there is not a position that could be adequately expressed? You're in a bit of a logic loop there. If no position can be adequately expressed, then "center-left" should not stay. Actually, just for shits and giggle, I'll give you the wording you asked for (because excluding my suggested edits this would be the ideal sort of edit). It would go something like "the position of the Australian Green party on the political spectrum can't be expressed in absolute terms. There are some who contend the party is far-left, based on A and B (source). Others believe the party is center-left based on C and D (source). Performing a policy analysis reveals that the party lies at different points on the spectrum for different issues. They are center-right on the majority of economic issues (source). They are center-left on the majority of social reform issues (source)", etc., etc., not the edit I want to do. It may be hard to do, but for the person that has the time and means to do it, it would be rewarding. I believe you've already said you could achieve it. You should do it. You are clearly a good editor and edit a lot of political pages (I say that'd make you an "edgelord" who "trolls" those pages but I believe it is a bullshit term for people who want to brow beat people away who actually want to help edit these hot topics). I'm being quite serious though. I've had a look at your edits. You could easily do this and probably set the tone for all similar pages. Note: I personally hate the "left/right" spectrum. It's not 1700s France and the terms are not nuanced enough to adequately represent political parties. Bu t it's what people are used to. blah (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not playing: I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that the inevitable next play here is to argue that any given source isn't authoritative enough (and yes, I'm using your words from your first post). The party could be adequately expressed as "centre-left", it could be adequately expressed as "left", it could be expressed as "progressive", it could be adequately expressed in a way that doesn't specifically refer to the left-right spectrum, or could be adequately expressed another way entirely that I haven't thought of: all of the above are, from a generally non-ideological perspective, true - but working through any of the above requires people to actually have a discussion and try to work towards a solution. The long-form suggestion is essentially unworkable: no other political party on Wikipedia has such a long-winded explanation, and Wikipedia doesn't "perform a policy analysis" in its own voice, but to state that they were, for example, "at different points on the spectrum on different issues" or "centre-left on the majority of social reform issues" would require exactly the same consensus on broad sourcing that you're resolutely avoiding having here, since all of those specific contentions (as with any other political party) face exactly the same issues as a single-sentence explanation. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Would anyone have qualms with describing them as left-leaning? Which covers pretty much anywhere on the left side of the left-wing spectrum, including centre-left. Hopefully that change will also reduce the number of people editing the article to call them far-left or left. I realize the debate here is over citation, but a party's political position on the left-right spectrum is always subjective, so why not just say what everyone knows and agrees on, that they're left-leaning? Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 10:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

So, you don't want to edit it because you believe (having never had contact with me before) that I'll argue the "source isn't authoritative enough" and that these words are from my first post. That is a little paranoid. My first post states nothing of authority. My second post states it can be "answered authoritatively from specific sources". I.e. there are authoritative sources that give a clear analysis of the Greens. You have stated this yourself to be true when you wrote that there are several ways that it could be answered and you could get sources for all of them. With several sources a good picture can be built. If you were to make this edit I couldn't care less what sources you got and how "authoritative" they are - because any source is a better authority than no source (i.e what the page currently has). The long form solution (an edit that I'm not asking for) is as workable as people want to make it. The only thing stopping it working would be a disruptive author who wants to block edits of that sort (e.g. like you). If wording about policy analysis is needed to be sourced from an external work then this would be sourced externally. These things should not need consensus if all major contended points of view are represented. But this brings me back to my original edit. The current assertion of "centre-left" has no citation to verify it. I would like to alert readers that this sole claim is not sourced and put a "citation needed" tag in. This will adequately alert any reader that the assertion is unverified and give them the chance to come to the talk page, read this discussion and suggest changes for the better. You haven't given any good reason to block a "citation needed" tag. All of the questions I have made in that regard have been left unanswered by you. Do you agree to put a Wikipedia:Citation_needed tag for the unverified "centre-left" claim, as per wikipedia policy? blah (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

This conversation is gettin very repetitive. They are green, that is incontestable, where they sit on the left-right spectrum is hotly contested, all sides of the debate can find citations for their own views...the debate is endless. We leave it off, the reader can decide where they sit on the left-right spectrum. Bacondrum (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with this. It is one of the two options I preferred. blah (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Fine with it also, I suggested that earlier, but it was rejected. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 14:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Latest "left wing" addition

Just to comment on the latest additon that the Greens are left wing. It uses 4 sources:

• [2] Ignoring the bias of the source, it is coverage of a compliant that the NSW Greens are "being inflitrated" by the left. Might be relevant to the NSW Greens article, but not so much with the Australian Greens.
• [3] Complaint that Di Natale has taken the party to the right. Not a good source for saying that the party is left.
• [4] 8 year old article, only mention of "left wing" is in the title. No discussion in the article about whether it is left or not.
• [5] Opinion piece, arguing that the Greens were both left and right, and that under Di Natale they are having trouble championing leftest policies,

Unless I'm missing something, the only real claim that the Greens are now firmly left wing in those sources is in regard to NSW Greens. The two others which have some relevance are arguing that the Greens are centralist under Di Natale and are being positioned to get more of the conservative vote. But it really comes down to the problems we hit before - progressive politics isn't firmly left or right. - Bilby (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• this conversations been had ad nauseum. Placing them and other moderate, mainstream party's on the left right scale will always be contentious and lead to endless conflicts, so we have agreed a number of times now to leave the position off, let the reader decide based on the article. Bacondrum (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

If the position was edited out because it is contentious, then it is clear someone edited it back in. At this point in time, the newly edited in position is "centre-left" and this can't be challenged even with the simple ask for a citation (a staple of good encyclopedic content is that it is verifiable) without it being reverted. Perhaps it should be reverted to being edited out? blah (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Leave it off, it's highly contestable - citations can be found for any number of conflicting claims about where they sit on the spectrum. Let the reader decide. As per god knows how many previous conversations. Bacondrum (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggested inclusion of ideology and position

I'd like to suggest including "left libertarianism" as well as the political position centre-left to left-wing. This is sourced the findings of the political scientist Stewart Jackson studying the party.

Source for "left libertarianism":

"The path of party formation and growth would suggest that it is potentially now 'left-libertarian' in orientation, marked by existing on the left of the political spectrum while still espousing personal liberational values."

Source for "centre-left" to "left-wing" (Following an analysis of AG's ):

"Ideological positioning, in respect to left-right positioning within the Australia Greens, was found to fit well within the conception of most post-materialists as left wing, if we accept that most Greens are post-materialist. The bulk of Australian Green party members placed themselves left of centre, and clearly as left wing."

Although the sourcing is significantly more reputable than some news articles which occasionally had "Greens" and "left" in the same sentence, I'd like consensus on the issue before inclusion. Catiline52 (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

And yet you added it anyway. "Left-libertarianism" at the least is highly contentious and I would not support it under any circumstances (the source there qualifies it twice!!). Although I don't think many would dispute that the Greens fall somewhere on the left, whether they are "centre-left" or "left" or "far-left" has been the subject of many ongoing disputes, which is why it has been decided (multiple times) to leave that field blank. The source in question does not actually support centre-left at all. Frickeg (talk) 10:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The ideology of the Greens is green politics. Nothing else. Everything else exists simply to support green goals. Trying to squeeze this ideology onto a traditional, mostly linear spectrum is a pointless exercise. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

"And yet you added it anyway." I boldly included it because nobody responded, since there is a conversation starting I will not attempt to add anything. The issue in the past, these labels have been contested due to a lack of WP:RELIABLE sources to back them up. They have either claimed it based on POV arguments ("I think X"), WP:ORIGINAL research where they look at the policies and do the previous, or rely on exaggerating news articles. The stated ideologies of centre-left and left-wing come out of a section of the book titled "'Neither left nor right but out in front': Ideological positioning". To get to the end result, the researcher undertook a variety of surveys of the membership as well as the involvement of the party with unions (Which has historically been the basis of the 'left/right' construction within Australia). They argue that although many Greens members argue they are within the postmaterialist paradigm of "Neither left or right", they still fall within the traditional materialist spectrum and fit within centre-left to left-wing. Is there any reputable sources that dispute the findings? Catiline52 (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to add another source onto this, another from political science, that analyses political discourses that finds that although the Greens believe they're post-ideological, their environmental discourses and resulting policies fit within left-wing schemas of the "powerful exploiting the vulnerable".

Trying to squeeze green politics onto a traditional, mostly linear spectrum is a pointless exercise. HiLo48 (talk) 11:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we verify this claim? No other Green Party page seems to have an issue with the inclusion if it's sourced. Catiline52 (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Verify what? It's a pointless exercise because every commentator who chooses to can express their personal opinion on where the Greens fit in. That will lead to as many opinions as there are commentators. Choosing one that matches your own ideas doesn't help build a better encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly: it's one source among many. In order to get any traction, there would need to be a broad range of sources that clearly identify a position, without there being a significant number of sources offering different takes. As discussed at very great length above (which is why it would have been a good idea to wait more than two days to make your changes), this does not appear to be the case. To be clear: the Jackson source, from the quotes above, supports neither "left libertarianism" nor "centre-left". Frickeg (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Catiline52, I've seen them described as everything from "tree Tories" to "communists". I think their political position is contentious and hard to define. For me they occupy a similar position to the Australian Democrats and Centre Alliance and I have a number of sources that claim as much. The only serious Greens activist I know well is a former Liberal Party member. They're a green party, with a broad membership including prominent former LNP folks, socialists, ex Labor folks and ex Dems...they are greens, that's not debatable, I reckon we should leave it there. I certainly don't consider them to be left, they're centrist libertarian/green, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Lengthy page

It's surprising how lengthy the page has grown in such a short amount of time, however, I feel a lot of it can be shortened or moved to their own pages. A significant section of the page is now dedicated to listing the findings of the support base, primarily from the Australian Election Study, outlining in extreme detail the specific demographics that vote Green. I'm wondering if we should shorten this section, as no other political party describes it in such detail and it is something that fluctuates often. I'm also uncertain of the inclusion of a dedicated 'portfolio' section, as it already has a dedicated spin-off page like other parties. Should we spin off other sections into their own pages, like the Leaders section which Labor pages do. I'd prefer to have feedback from more experienced editors before committing to the overhaul. Catiline52 (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that that particular section could do with a very harsh pruning and the portfolios section could be eliminated and replaced with a Wikipedia:Summary style lik somewhere in the caucus section given it already has its own page. As to the rest of the article: the "interactions with other political groups" section could do with a bit of rewriting/pruning as it suffers from a severe case of WP:RECENTISM (it starts when Wikipedia got popular despite the fact that the Greens had existed for years before that and as a result ignores key pieces of history, while having too much detail about trivial stuff), "working groups" could be converted into prose, "state and territory parties" is a good length but has severe problems with outdated recentism, the policy and history sections are a sprawling mess of stuff someone felt like including at some point and could use a more concise rewrite. Things like the huge paragraph on attacks for being "anti-Christian" before the 2010 election article have no significance in the party's broader history a decade on. "Other notable members" really belongs in a category rather than in the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I've done some minor pruning, simplifying the parliamentarian section by putting most of it on a separate page, as well as the state and territory parties. I'll wait for more feedback before starting more substantial sections, like the "Support base", "Interactions with other political groups", and "Policy positions" sections. Catiline52 (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Broadly fine. I re-added the list of former federal MPs (not long enough to need siphoning off elsewhere, useful context here). I also promoted the "state and territory parties" a level, so it's equal to the others in the "Structure" section: this section seems to have been written by someone who doesn't really understand how the Greens work internally and thinks they work like the ALP and Liberal Party, because the federation structure of the Greens is really important to the history and ongoing governance of the federal party, not just their success at state level. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The name 'divisions' for the state parties arose out of the use of it in the Australian Greens template, but it does seem like it doesn't accurately portray the Australian Greens structure. Would 'member party' be more accurate, as it's used for some Green state parties? Catiline52 (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems better than the current one. It has broader problems than nomenclature though - it really ought to explain the role of the state parties in the governance of the federal party. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Should the results for state elections be removed from the history section and moved to the state parties? Unless it's significant (e.g. forming a coalition in a state government), it only adds to a huge amount of electoral results. On that note, should the minute details about every single election be simplified, similarly to Australian Democrats? There's too much focus on electoral results, instead of what the party did. Catiline52 (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

As for the state elections: I agree with you (no, unless something like a coalition). I'm wary of saying it should be less focused on electoral results (because plenty of the things mentioned are significant), it's more that the entire history section needs a from-scratch rewrite, because it's basically a monster that's sprawled over the years since Wikipedia started with additions of random news and doesn't cover anything very well. To that effect, I'm not sure I agree with dumping the monstrosity in History of the Australian Greens; if we want a long-form history page, it also really needs to be rewritten from scratch. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Drovers Wife and Catiline52, I agree the history section goes into too much detail, it almost reads like a promotion. I don't know if the history section needs to be rewritten, a severe pruning and some rewriting should do the trick, IMO. Thanks for all the work you've put in so far. If noone else gives it a crack I might try a little prune this weekend. Bacondrum (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, some pruning is needed. I agree that the later history section is extremely promotional and should be pruned, the "2019 federal election onward" section is just listing policies that are under the 'ideology' section. There are some sections that need to be re-written, particularly the formation section to explain the historical differences between different member parties and subsequent conflict. It'd also be better (as a longer term editing goal) for the 'ideology' section to have WP:RS sources, rather than citing the party website. It's not like they aren't well covered in the news, unlike minor parties. Catiline52 (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Starting by pruning the "2019 federal election onward" sounds like a good plan. I also agree that the formation section needs rewriting and ideolgy needs cites, it could also be pruned, IMO. Labor has no ideology section and the Libs ideology section doesn't go into anywhere near as much detail, I don't think we should list policies they can I reckon they can promote themselves, as per WP:NOTPROPAGANDA Bacondrum (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Good morning, I've beeen reading the policy and history sections and they are meandering and promotional, as you both already pointed out. I looked at the ALP page and it is tiny in comparison, but the ALP are much older and have actually formed government many times, this is a ridiculous disparity, IMO. Then I notice how much of it is cited by themselves. We shouldn't be republishing the Greens own propaganda to this extent, it is blatant WP:ADVOCACY. I'm going to take to these sections with a hatchet and remove most of the claims cited to the Greens themselves and remove news as per WP:NOTNEWS. If you think I've got it wrong, revert and I'll come back to discuss, and hopefully we can get it to something that is workable, with the aim of providing an encyclopedic overview rather than a policy statement and promotion. Cheers. Bacondrum (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The page is actually looking nearly readable now! Thanks for your work. Catiline52 (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for your efforts also. Bacondrum (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I gave it a prune, but I still think the history section is massive in comparisson to party's with far more extensive histories, plus there's a History of the Australian Greens article already. What else (if anything) do you folks think should be pruned from this bloated history section? Bacondrum (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

So, looking at it now, I reckon the history section is clunky and bloated. Do we really need to list all elections with a detailed breakdown of election results? Bacondrum (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Addition of "progressivism" to Ideology parameter.

I feel like adding "Progressivism" to the ideology parameter in the infobox would be a relatively non-controversial change that would give better information to readers. A good source for this would be this interview given by current leader Adam Bandt, where he speaks at length about how the Greens are a progressive party. As an additional note, that source also explicitly identifies the party as left-wing. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Ideology

Under this section in the infobox, could we add "left wing", or something along that line?

I think its pretty clear that the greens are left wing, as evidenced by their numerous policies on their website. Can I add this in? ★★RetroLord★★ 06:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

See a range of responses as to why not at Talk:Australian Greens#Political position above. Also please avoid making unsubstantiated claims as here and here. --ELEKHH^T 07:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

[After Edit conflict] Three points... Firstly, what you (or I) think is irrelevant. What counts, if anything, is what reliable sources say. Secondly, my view is that simplistic labels in the Infobox are best left for simple people. We should describe the party's policies in some detail in the article (as we already do), and let our readers draw their own conclusions. After all, you did. Thirdly, "left wing" is often used these days as a catch-all descriptor for anything someone else doesn't like. I recently saw the term "left wing" used in the Australian political context to describe people who want to see more kindness to asylum seekers. That's so far removed from Marxist politics as to make the term meaningless. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with you HiLo except we must follow the precedent set by most other political articles. I don't really see the problem labelling the greens left wing, its an almost universally accepted fact. Infoboxes are for quick summaries, so why can't we call them left wing? ★★RetroLord★★ 07:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

And the left wing comments are nothing to do with asylum seekers, its their economic and "social justice" policies that make them left wing. ★★RetroLord★★ 07:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

What you (or I) think the Greens ideology is is irrelevant. (Didn't I already say that?) HiLo48 (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Correct. So when it is almost universally accepted they are left-wing, couldn't we add that in? ★★RetroLord★★ 08:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The best sources I could find ast time I looked into this effectively stated that the Greens didn't fit into left/right wing dichotomy, arguing that they (and many other new parties) needed a second axis. Left wing doesn't accurately describe their stance, because the type of politics that the Greens represent is more nuanced. - Bilby (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

List of political parties in Australia labels them as both economically and socially left wing. For consistency's sake, shouldn't we remove that aswell as the leftwing infobox tags? ★★RetroLord★★ 08:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. HiLo48 (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that article provides a poor overview table as it ignores environment, so needs improvement. I also suggest you read political spectrum for a more nuanced insight. --ELEKHH^T 13:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll give up on this page for now. I've tried before to have things changed only to be stonewalled here. It is almost universally accepted the greens are left wing, yet all I here about is nuance and obscure academic theories. Ask 100 people on the street in Australia this question and 99 of them will agree, the greens are left wing. ★★RetroLord★★ 13:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a serious encyclopaedia. To present a convincing case based on something like "It is almost universally accepted the greens are left wing", you really need to define "left wing", and explain why it needs to be in the article if it's as obvious as you say it is anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added in a 'citation needed' tag. This is a request to verify the veracity of the claim that they are indeed "left wing" or "center-left" as it currently states. As it stands, this has obviously changed at some point in the last 6 years from "left wing" to "center-left" yet the party policies are much the same over this period.blah (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that the Greens are not that far left. The Victorian Socialists are shown as Left-Wing on their wiki page and i dont think that the Greens are on par with them in politics (unless that is a problem with the Victorian Socialists wiki). AmNowEurovision (talk) 09:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

This should be included

You should include the news about certain Greens members making inappropriate remarks towards the Queen and King. This is unacceptable. Wikipedia is uncensored and this information should be added to the article. 113.197.13.151 (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Ideology

The note about left wing populism should be removed from from infobox. To something be accepted as one of the main ideologies it needs wide acceptance and many sources to confirm it especially in academic community and by independent third party sources. Also even if there are some left wing populism policies, it not one of the main ideologies if not widely accepted and backed by sources. Also if there is note about faction then shoud be included all factions as its mention some "Tree Tories" in the source presented. So in general and to be more clear just the main ideologies for infobox should work.178.222.27.82 (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Republicanism

I've seen republicanism added to the ideology section in the infobox a couple of times now. While support for a republic is definitely Greens policy (which is all the cited reference confirms), it's not an overarching ideology and they simply don't talk about it all that much compared to, say, dental into Medicare or banning corporate donations. I also think it would be a bit silly to include republicanism as an ideology for all the innumerable minor parties which support a republic, and even Labor. I've removed it for now. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 00:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Why "the Greens political party"?

In parliament, whenever the government or opposition refer to the Greens, it's not just "the Greens" or even "the Greens party", but "the Greens political party". I've noticed this time and time again.

We all know it's a party, just like the Libs, the Nats, the ALP etc. And we all know it's a political party, not a house-warming party or whatever else. So, why is there a need to spell it out to the nth degree each and every time? Particularly as this is never done for any other party. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)