Talk:Australian Greens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Australia / Politics (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Australian Greens is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (marked as High-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance.
WikiProject Environment (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics / Political parties (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Political parties task force.


Controversy and criticism[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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:

Amos Aikman, The Australian: Bob Brown's UN vision for the greening of the world:

Anne Mather, The Mercury: Bob sings up a party:

David Beniuk, Ninemsn: 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: 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 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.[edit]

Contrasting Wikipedia entries on The Greens and the Australian Christian Lobby proves the bias of the site. (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. (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. (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 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. (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. (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[edit]

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. (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[edit]

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 :). --ELEKHHT 08:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Melbourne by-election, Sydney by-election[edit]

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 ?? (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[edit]

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. --ELEKHHT 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[edit]

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: 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. --ELEKHHT 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:

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[edit]

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 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: Act Now Oz Parties Sky News Article by Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon 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)

Removal of pictures explanation - Nick-D[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

That's not a good comparison: one of the reasons those parties don't have images is that we don't have photos of all their members released on Wikipedia-friendly CC licenses as is the case for the Greens. I think that the photos add a fair bit of value to the article given that the Greens have never managed to get all that many people elected and their individual senators tend to have a high profile once they get in. Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I think it is a poor argument to use articles that lack any free use photographs (as Nick-D has pointed out above). I don't agree with them being laid out in a gallery style (a list could be better) but doesn't mean that the photos should be removed. Bidgee (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Seems you can't make up your mind. How is it undue? Did you just ignore what was said? Regardless, you'll need to gain a consensus for your removal. Bidgee (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Well please provide some policy or precedent based reasons as to why my edits should be reverted otherwise I will keep them in. Thanks. RetroLord 09:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
No, you need to gain a consensus! I'm restoring the stable version. Bidgee (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Please also note the previous discussion on this very same topic at Talk:Australian Greens#Use of photos of senators. --ELEKHHT 10:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Factual Innaccuracy[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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. --ELEKHHT 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. --ELEKHHT 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)

Political Labels in Infobox[edit]

So, here are some proposals for discussion.

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

Do you have any reliable and verifiable sources that are not vague? Bidgee (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Someone is pushing a POV here. You won't let it in without a 100% clear-cut reference? Half the article is referenced. Why are you so desperate to avoid having the greens labelled as left wing, or even socially progressive? Given that their policies are so blatantly socially progressive I didn't think I would have such a hard time getting that bit in there. RetroLord 15:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I have no POV on this matter, the burden is up to you to find supporting sources. Bidgee (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Fact: University students are in general more left wing than an average member of society. It is probable you DO have a POV on this subject. Earlier your argument was that it was incorect, now your argument is it is unreferenced? Someone is pretty desperate to stop this getting into the article....RetroLord 15:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you remove the above uncivil personal attack. Again, I have no POV and the burden is up to you to get a new consensus and find supported sources. Bidgee (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Uncivil personal attack? You sound like the guy at WP:AN or the like who recently proposed a ban over being called a "non-entity". RetroLord 16:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Because its pretty clear-cut the greens are left wing. One senator is a former communist party and another green did a PhD on marxism. Their economic policies are socialist, the social policies are very progressive. Hence the labels left wing and social progressive. In Australian media they are just reffered to as communists its so obvious, no citation required. RetroLord 06:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
You're bit of a hypocrite to say that no citation is need for your own opinion, yet you wanted a source for something that is obvious. I'm getting a little sick of your attacks and the pushing the point editing, which in effect is bullying. Bidgee (talk) 08:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
A friend of mine did a PhD on yabbies. She isn't a yabbie. HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Lee Rhiannon RetroLord 07:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Mickey Mouse HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Goodness. The vanguards of the Greens wouldn't even let me add social progressive. RetroLord 23:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your personal attacks, and try to engage in a constructive dialogue. See MOS:INFOBOX#Purpose of an infobox which states "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". Hence it is reasonable to say that if a party is best described by a particular ideology, than there is no need for further, more generic descriptions in the infobox. --ELEKHHT 01:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
As by far the most socially progressive party in Australia, i'm pretty sure they'd be dissapointed to hear anyone describe that as irrelevant to their core ideology. Next to saving the franklin river and neo-marxism, I'd say social progressivism is right up there. RetroLord 01:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Not one of the above comments said it was irrelevant. There are times on wikipedia when editors need to recognise that they are outside the consensus and that the time has come to shut up and concentrate on other concerns which are more likely to be important. That time has come for you, Retrolord, here. ELEKHH has it spot on. Stop personal attacks and accept that there is no need for further, more generic descriptions in the infobox. One is enough. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrolord might do well to more carefully read the article and follow some links. The lead links to Green politics which tells us that "Green politics is a political ideology that aims to create an ecologically sustainable society rooted in environmentalism, social justice, and grassroots democracy...The party's platform is largely considered left in the political spectrum." So, much of what Retrolord wants listed separately is pretty much already encompassed by the term Green politics. It would be redundant to add elements already covered by that term. HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Minor improvements[edit]

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

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

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

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

Left Wing[edit]

The Greens are clearly a left wing party. All their social and economic policies go from left to far left winged. The ABC and The Sydney Morning Herald has called the Greens far left (, while others have put them of the left to far left spectrum ( Wikipedia even has them as a left wing party (, ( They support most ALP policies, but have always tried to take them further. What is there to argue, they are clearly a (far)left winged party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas11213 (talkcontribs) 10:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

See the extensive discussion above. This keeps coming up and there is no consensus to add left wing and also a strong consensus to keep the infobox simple. "Green politics" covers everything. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Many wiser folk these days consider the traditional linear spectrum of political positions too simplistic. You are doing the right thing looking at sources, but your choices are not good. Another political party's view cannot be used. (The LDP.) The SMH article is one writer's opinion. It would need to be clearly attributed. (Is she important? I've never heard of her.) The entry in List of political parties in Australia is not sourced, so really shouldn't be there. That's actually a very poor article. HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Many people agree with Andreas11213 in saying that the Greens are a left wing party. All their policies are left wing and even go into far left. Yet the only reason you won't allow it to be added to the infobox is because it isn't "sourced" or the sources provided aren't good enough for you. Many people have argued their case only to be knocked back by HiLo48 and others for no particular reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
This isn't about me. it's about reliable sourcing. Please click on that link and read the article carefully. HiLo48 (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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

I agree with all of that, especially the thought that a simple label in an Infobox is of little use at all. HiLo48 (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Marxism is far left ( All you need to do is look at their policies, they are clearly at least a left-wing party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas11213 (talk 06:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Andreas11213 (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please don't change the article again until a change in consensus occurs here. So far, nobody has agreed with you. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
This has been discussed ad nauseam for years. I see nothing in this discussion to change the consensus view. Frickeg (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

State MP numbers in lead infobox[edit]

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

Should we keep the HoR result table?[edit]

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

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

Infobox seat numbers[edit]

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

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

IMO it's a bit misleading to lump all the states and territories together in this way - I don't see how it helps readers understand the issue. The comparison is also somewhat problematic - the Greens do better in the states with proportional representation (Tasmania and the ACT) than they do in states with single member representation due to the way the electoral systems play out. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
It's original research: this figure is not coming from anywhere, it's reliant on calculations by Wikipedians and can't be easily checked against anything (for example to see if it's been updated after an election or six). The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
And as well as the above - we've already got bar graphs for each state lower down in the article already, just like Lab/Lib. Timeshift (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
@The Drover's Wife: Calculations are NOT original research. Just as we don't need a reference to say that the sky is blue, we don't need a reference to say that 1+1=2. Notwithstanding that, I actually agree that adding up seats from different parliaments is not very useful and shouldn't be in the infobox. It would be more useful to have File:AusGreensRepesentation.png updated and re-included in the article. --ELEKHHT 06:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Calculations are not original research "provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources", which in this case there clearly is not. I agree that this is not a useful figure, and not only does proportional representation destroy any kind of meaning it might have, the size of the chambers does too (five out of 25 in Tasmania is obviously rather different to, say, 5 out of 93 in NSW). Frickeg (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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