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 help@wikimedia.org.au 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, Mid-importance)
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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Political parties task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ideology[edit]

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

Thanks for these very pertinent observations. I tried to address them, but surely there is still plenty of scope for further improvement. --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 (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/the-greens-loony-extreme-or-just-a-little-leftwing-20120710-21t4f.html), while others have put them of the left to far left spectrum (http://ldp.org.au/quiz/ozparties.html). Wikipedia even has them as a left wing party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Australia), (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_politics). They support most ALP policies, but have always tried to take them further. What is there to argue, they are clearly a (far)left winged party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas11213 (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 121.214.17.246 (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
This isn't about me. it's about reliable sourcing. Please click on that link and read the article carefully. HiLo48 (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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

I agree with all of that, especially the thought that a simple label in an Infobox is of little use at all. HiLo48 (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Marxism is far left (http://www.marxistleftreview.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46:a-marxist-critique-of-the-australian-greens&catid=34:issue-1-spring-2010&Itemid=77).

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

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

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

State MP numbers in lead infobox[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)

Socialist?[edit]

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

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

Australian Greens: Centre-left?[edit]

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

No, the argument is not about labelling green politics left, centre or right. It is about being non-educational to use a hyper-simplistic left-right political spectrum in the 21st century when it comes to a party that rejects such reductionism, as per the multiple comments above. -ELEKHHT 12:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Green politics of Australian Greens exactly is left (include Centre-left) that why Green Party in UK and USA were labeled "left-wing'" in position.Did you find any policies of Australian Greens that connect to the right wing politics?Minhle20002013 (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Just read again the above, follow the links, and come across things like "right wing and left wing, which originally referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament after the Revolution (1789–99)." ... "Political scientists have frequently noted that a single left–right axis is insufficient for describing the existing variation in political beliefs". --ELEKHHT 12:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)