Talk:Australian Greens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag Australian Greens is part 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 This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
WikiProject Australia To-do:

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

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

Contents

[edit] political ideology

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

Nah, green politics pretty much nails it, whereas the Liberals are neither totally conservative or totally neo-liberal. - Aaron Hill 11:31, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
Greens policy cannot completely be defined as environmental. It is heavily socialist and generally socially radical as well. liberals for forests is an example of a green libertarian party. They do not preference the Greens highly because they disagree massively on non-environmental issues. Being "green" does not fully describe the Greens. matturn 12:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Liberals for forests has a chequered history. It started in WA and took votes from the Liberals due to Liberal policy being to continue with destructive logging/woochipping practices. In 2004 in NSW the party was hijacked by Glen Druery(?) - a political operator who attempts to get elected by micropreference flow tactics. He did not succeed, but he DID direct Senate preferences away from the Greens to right wing parties. Peter Campbell 03:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ALP and Liberal articles aren't necessarily perfect, and I think an ideology section in this article is entirely justified. That said, you're entirely right in that no other party has this amount of crap about what everyone else thinks about them, as to what they actually are. Ambi 13:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think we should expect this article to be entirely parallel to the ALP/Liberal articles in that regard. IMHO, it's a fact of life that "other parties' POV" matters more to minor parties such as the Greens than it does to the ALP and Coalition. For them, being able to win allies and cut deals is important; for us, it's essential. A better comparison might be Family First Party; while they don't have a specific section on their relationships with other parties, there is quite a bit throughout the article, in particular here. I do agree with separating 'relationships' section off from party ideology, though - if anything, it probably ought to be moved a little further away. --Calair 23:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
There's a key difference there. A "relationships" section in the context of their ability to do preference deals with other parties would make a lot of sense. That's not what we have at the moment - far too much of this article is still about the opinions of every other party but themselves. Ambi 00:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
This would certainly be an improvement. I think those opinions are a significant element of the relationships (and one of the most visible elements, which is probably why they're so prominent here) but ideally that would just be part of a broader section. --Calair 04:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Balances of power

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

Whoever added the "Howard government gaining power means Greens will have less influence" bit. I don't see the relevance at all, save heaping praises at the Coalition. Removed. 203.214.147.34 13:38, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
And I've reverted. What the heck? If the Greens had the balance of power, they would have a huge amount of influence over legislation to be passed. As they do not, they now have practically none. It's not about heaping praise on the blasted Coalition, but a matter of a simple, unfortunate fact. Ambi 13:48, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Let's look at this sentence: "In the 2004 Federal election the Greens' primary vote rose by around 2% (to an average of around 7%), giving them two additional seats in the Senate, but the success of the Howard government in winning a majority in the Senate, however, meant that the Greens' influence would decrease." How many commas there? Just throw in "however" for good measure, when you want to tack something on? That last snip is not necessary, and was placed on the end of the sentence recently. "What the heck" indeed. 203.214.146.4 05:15, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Unless, you know, you want to add a snip about "[x] party will lose influence due to the Howard majority" to EVERY SINGLE party's page on Wikipedia. There's no mention of "balance of power" in this article anymore, and without a reference to it, I don't see the relevance of predictions like "[x] party's influence will decrease." That's not encyclopedia-worthy. 203.214.146.4 05:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
its not a prediction. its a fact. when one party (or a coalition of parties) gains an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in a house of parliament. oposition parties which would have otherwise held the balance of power and gained huge influence due to their individual good results no longer have any real effect and are in fact in a worse position than when they had less seats. Xtra 05:48, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC) Typical right wing bias.
Two edit wars in two days on Australian's political parties' pages and in this case I am again supposedly on the conservative side *sigh*. Any party who isnt the Liberal or Nationals power decreases in the event of the government seizing a Senate majority. Its a fact. If the government doesn't have to deal with you, you have little to no power. - Aaron Hill 06:17, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

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

I'm not leaving a horrid run-on sentence like that. It reads horribly, is an eyesore, and serves no purpose. Unless there's an equally poor sentence added to every other Australian party page, I'll keep removing it. I'm surprised to see so many prominent Australian Wikipedians defending such poor writing. The main Australian 2004 election article covers plenty of "the Greens didn't do as well as they'd hoped" tone, and I'll not have this page reading like a eulogy when the Greens increased their numbers in the Senate. Inter-party dynamics are for the main election article. So far as this article goes, they gained two Senate seats -- nearly three, had it not been for the Victoria preferences sham. 203.214.144.52 20:39, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Then reword the damned thing, not remove it. Please stop accusing us of being biased against the Greens - almost all of us are either Greens (as I am) or ALP voters. It should note just how much their vote increased, and how Siewert and Milne picked up seats despite the preferences sham - but it should also note that they had expected to do better (i.e. in seats such as Melbourne, and the Queensland Senate), and that their influence has now decreased, as a result of their support no longer being needed to pass legislation. Ambi 00:13, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh, please! "most" people are greens or ALP voters? WTF? Most people here are arrogant ultra-wing wing conservatives, spouting narrow minded homophobic and racist (immigration) view points, and editing accordingly. It's not even safe to speak a foreign language in this ocuntry anymore for fear of being locked up in a concentration camp..oops, I meant detention centre. How could I possibly get those confused?
IMHO (and I'm a Greens member myself), the fact that we increased our seats is the reason *why* it should be included. When we note that the Democrats lost seats, it hardly needs saying that this weakens them. But if we note that the Greens won seats, the natural presumption is that they'd be more powerful in the Senate than they were last time around. This *isn't* the case, it's not obvious to a casual reader that it isn't the case, it has a lot of impact on the Greens' role in the Senate, and so it bears mentioning here. Even if it means a small amount of duplication. --Calair 00:23, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hear, hear. Ambi 06:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

It is not the ALP's job to get Green Senators elected, but it also seems somewhat logical to preference someone who is likely to have similar views and vote with you, rather than someone who is likely to vote for the government. Preferencing Fielding over Risstrom was a disaster - rather than helping Collins hold her seat, he took it from her, and the ALP now has a right-wing nuisance in the Senate for the next eight years. So, at least in Victoria, if not a sham, it was one hell of a stuff-up. The ALP also should've known better than to preference Petrusma over Milne in any circumstances. It is madness for a left-wing party to be preferencing the far-right. Let us just hope the lesson has been learned for next time. Ambi 06:10, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm unsure that the Greens would receive Labor preferences in the future because one of Labor's biggest problems this time around was that it was seen as getting too cuddly with the Greens (re: Tasmanian forests especially). Conversely, Labor rather enjoyed its effective Senate majority on the matter of anything remotely progressive in a de facto ALP/Greens/Democrats voting bloc and such an arrangement will happen with Family First when hell freezes over. (Or when St Kilda wins the flag). - Aaron Hill 08:30, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
The ALP would be immensely foolish to hold that against the Greens. It was a risky policy (IMO a good one), but it should have been announced long before the election to give O'Byrne and Sidebottom time to rebuild bridges. Ambi 09:07, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Other parties' view of the Greens

Re: edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

Xtra, find a critical link that is not from Family First. I think a link by either the lib/lab party would be fine - it's just that FF are have pretty extreme views. For example, I don't think a critical link on the liberal party page from an organization like Resistance would be appropriate either. Jgritz 15:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've put http://www.australiangreenswatch.com page as a critical link. There's some interesting reading on here, and its a little more balanced and actually probably more damaging than the FF link. Xtra, I hope this resolves your concerns. Jgritz 15:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would like the original Herald sun article if anyone could find it. Xtra 23:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I hope you don't mean the article refered to here. Jgritz 14:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes. The article was substantially correct and the points raised by the press council were minor at best. Unfortunately, the article itself and the article which refutes the decission of the press council are both no longer available. However, if they were, I would put them in. Xtra 22:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think you've just lost any claim of neutral intent, Xtra. Troyac 07:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me? I have been more than fair in suggesting that a newspaper article be put up inted of a political site. There are two important points you are missing. 1 The article refered to was in Australia's most popular newspaper and even after the investigation was still shown to be substantially correct. 2 Every major Australian political party has links on their page to websites not only from newspapers, but from other political parties, whose sole purpose is to discredit them. I resent any suggestion that I am not being neutral. I am being more fair to the greens than other editors are being to other political parties. Given the way you are just throwing around accusations, I may just re-insert the Family First link, as it is a relevant, b fully referenced, c far more tame than many other links that spout full on slander. If you intend to revert, please give a real reason here in the talk. Otherwise I will revert back as vandalism. Xtra 09:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Whoops - I didn't realise that news articles judged "irresponsible journalism" and "seriously inaccurate" by an independent body, who then subsequently rejected an appeal are actually just the opposite. My mistake. I think you've got quite an agenda here - Your talk page says you're a fan of both the liberal party and the national party, and you've continually pushed to have a very right-wing link placed on this page. In fact you've placed it here 4 times now. I'm going to remove it and I think you should let someone else decide whether it is suitable. Jgritz 10:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur with the views of Jgritz that linking to an article that has been ruled as inappropriate by the press council would be irresponsible. The article was not shown as substantially correct (as per Xtra's comments above). To the contrary the Press Council [4] viewed the article as irresponsible journalism (seems to be very strong words), and stated the claims made in the original article were seriously inaccurate. The council upheld the complaint by Senator Bob Brown against The Herald Sun, Melbourne and dismnissed an appeal against the decision.--AYArktos 22:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My soccer coach once told me that if I want to be taken seriously I should tackle the ball not the man. You have not come within 20 metres of the ball. Please explain why a relevant and fully referenced link is not appropriate. For the matter links do not need to be NPOV anyway. I don't have an agenda other than making this into a acurate encyclopaedia. You on the other hand are refusing to give reasons for your actions. Who is the one with the agenda? As I said before DO NOT REVERT WITHOUT A GOOD REASON - ATTACKING MY CREDIBILITY IS NOT A GOOD REASON. Xtra 12:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It is my opinion that this link [5] should not feature. It is apparently not a party view of another party but an individual's view. Links to pages of other officially registered political parties and their views on a second party would probably be appopriate. This would include the Family First party link. I would be happy for this stance to apply to all articles on political parties in Australia.--AYArktos 22:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have added some Liberal and Democrat views from the 2004 election. Not sure quite frankly that they offer much insights - you need to go more between the lines. The broken record of the Prime Minister on the links between Labor and the Greens dowes not come through from one speech - it is when you realise he said it many many times through the elction and had nothing else to say that it becomes more interesting - the absence of any meaningful comment on Greens' policies is harder to depict. The weasling of the Democrats that they prefer the Greens to Pauline Hanson is well - what can one say but they are trying not to disenfranchise sympathisers - or that is how I read it. Could be fascinating but would veer into the realm of original research. In summary I found it hard to raise any other party's views of the Greens, certainly not in such categorical terms as Family First.--AYArktos 23:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps rather than relying on external links, we ought to bite the bullet and create a section on other parties' criticisms of the Greens? (Or more broadly, 'relations with other parties'?) Balancing for NPOV would be tricky, but we seem to be having that problem anyway, and it would allow us to cover some things that aren't well explained on any single site. Explaining the political relationships would also help put some of these criticisms in perspective - for instance, the fact that the Greens and Democrats are to some extent rivals for the same political niche colours interpretation of their criticisms of one another. Most of the links that have been posted here previously could be worked into such a section at appropriate points. --Calair 02:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Started a political ideology section - could do with some help though. There's definitely a lot of interesting stuff that could be written about the different parties dynamics, and it gives scope to add the more controversial links in context of the larger situation. Jgritz 09:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


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

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

[edit] Greens template

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

[edit] leader

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

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

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

Q: Is Bob Brown the leader of the Greens?
No. Bob Brown is the Greens Senator for Tasmania. From 1998 to 2001 he was the only member of the Greens in federal parliament so he has naturally been the spokesperson for the Greens. He is labelled by the media as the "leader" of the Greens because all the other parties have leaders. Since Kerry Nettle was elected to federal Parliament as Senator for NSW in 2002, she is equally a spokesperson for the party.
The Greens don't have leaders. We have various people who do various jobs. In WA there are five Green MPs. None of the five is the "leader". Each is a spokesperson for various issues.
Jgritz 10:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


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

It is noted in the article. Xtra 13:44, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Xtra is right - read the footnote. Ambi 05:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] NPOV

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

[edit] 'Watermelon' comments

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

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

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

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

[edit] Complete re-write

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

Nice work - one thing though, maybe a few less interwiki links. Jgritz 07:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
just killed some of the more pointless ones. Cheers.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kieran Bennett (talk • contribs) 17:04, 15 December 2005 (ACST).
Great work! It would be even better if you could convert all your inline references to footnotes. See Wikipedia:Footnotes. Also, please don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages.--cj | talk 08:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Nice rewrite. All gripes have been fixed, and it's a lot better for it.Methulah 00:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of Interest?

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

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

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

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

I think Jgritz may have been suggesting that there could be a conflict of interest, but he does not represent Wikipedia policy. From what I know, Wikipedia values every editor, and acknowledges that everyone has their own views. Wikipedia just asks people to write in a way that represents a neutral point of view. So, instead of saying "Bill Gates sucks because he supports software patents only when it suits him", we say something along the lines of "Bill Gates has been widely criticised for his support of software patents. It is commonly claimed that Microsoft uses software patents as a way of stifling competition."
Please continue editing any article that interests you. I think it is Wikipedia policy to discourage you from editing your own (Peter Campbell) article, but even then, no one is out to stop you. - James Foster 13:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, actually, not even that's correct. "Bill Gates has been widely criticised for his support of software patents. It is commonly claimed that Microsoft uses software patents as a way of stifling competition" is an example of weasel words. Everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable and controversial statements, such as the above, would need references to a valid third-party source (as original research is prohibited). However, James' encouraging comments are true: it's great to see someone involved in Australian politics editing Wikipedia; I'd imagine you'd be quite knowledgeable in important areas (check out WikiProject Australian politics). Tangential to Peter's article, the recent Seigenthaler controversy inspired a few Wikipedians to formulate a new guideline directly relevant to this situation. --cj | talk 15:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
In asking this question I was just canvasing for opinion of what happens when someone closely involved with the topic starts editing. I've had 10 years involvement with the Greens myself, and I know my first edits here were all heavily POV. Peter's contributions are highly welcomed - I'm suppose I'm just playing devil's advocate to avoid any POV finger pointing further down the line. Thanks! --Jgritz 22:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually the best people to write the content of their own party is there members as they know exactly what the party stands for, and you cant make this page neutreal its about POLITICS and its never neutral. Enlil Ninlil 05:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Probably not possible to be perfectly neutral, but some pages are closer to neutral than others. Members of a party are in a great position to provide inside detail and fact-checking on some angles, but perhaps not so good at discussing the party's negatives - even with honest intentions, it's hard to argue against your own side. IMHO, the best people to write about a party are a mixture of its supporters and its opponents, plus a few unaligned... and a wiki is a reasonably good way to make that sort of collaboration work. --Calair 22:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Structure

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

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

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

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

[edit] Tanner quote

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

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

Having looked at The Australian article, I'm not sure that there was one. It looks more like an off-the-cuff quote to me. That said, I don't think this should be in the article anyway - there's still this over-obsession with what other people think of the Greens. Ambi 02:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Tanner leafletted his entire electorate (Melbourne) with information on "mad Greens policies". I will see if I can track down a copy of the leaflet and any references to it. Interestingly, the Liberals then lifted several of Tanner's anti-Green quotes onto their own "green coloured" leaflet which was selectively letter boxed in Kooyong and Chisholm, and mailed out by Lib Senator Judith Troeth at least to some people in Balwyn. Peter Campbell 05:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correct Referencing

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

The actual links seem to be OK, but not the numbers displaying on them. If I click on that '13' in the article, it takes me to reference #1, which is a Lateline article about Brandis' 'fascists' comment. Likewise, if I click on the '^' in the entry for reference #1, it takes me back to the section in the article discussing that remark.
The discrepancy between the total number of references within the article and at the end seems to be because three of them (numbered 9, 10, & 11 in the article) are direct links to the sources rather than pointing to anything in the 'References' section. Anybody more familiar with Wikipedia's referencing system want to take a stab at fixing this? --Calair 12:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Firsts

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

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

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

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

I guessed that was what was meant, but didn't want to correct without checking first. --Calair 04:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
It's sloppy wording, but that's not where the issue lies. Vallentine was elected in 1984 as an NDP Senator, resigned to sit as an independent, and joined the Western Australian Greens - then a seperate, if related party - in 1990. The WA Greens - and with them Senators Vallentine, Chamarette and Margetts (who all preceded Brown anyway, making the replacement statement in the article incorrect) were not part of the federal Greens until 2002. Brown was the first Australian Greens Senator in 1996. Rachel Siewert, elected in 2004, is the first WA Green to actually be part of the federal party. Ambi 04:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The current wording says that Bob Brown was the second Greens parliamentarian. In fact he was the fourth. Christabel Chamarette replaced Jo Valentine in 1992, and Dee Margetts was elected in 1993. So whether it's the third one elected, or fourth overall, it's no longer a significant statement. Ben Raue (Talk) 07:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greens & Democrats

This text has been added:

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

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

  • I'd agree with your assessment, Peter; it would appear (I won't bother attrib. in a talk page) that the ex-democrat vote has not simply xfrd to the Greens, either in the Aus. state elections of recent weeks or elections in the last few years. Such simplistic assertions are to be avoided. Colonel Tom 13:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • It appears from a reading of results that the dem vote was split aprox 2/5 to the greens, 1/5 to labor and 2/5 to the liberals. Xtra 14:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
You're talking SA, not Tas? Yep, it simply doesn't translate to anywhere near a one-to-one. Colonel Tom 14:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

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

No sources to hand, but federally I thought it was more 70:30 or even 65:35 than 80:20. And without stating the obvious more than necessary, the Dems are a Lib offshoot and more centrist than the Greens; there's not the same core constituency. Colonel Tom 14:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's not go nuts here. Where does my edit quoted above talk about one-to-one transfer? Don't forget that the Dems have historically attracted a lot of disenchanted Labor voters, especially during the Kernot/Stott Despoja periods of leadership; these voters aren't going to be heading for the Liberals any time soon. And of course, a lot of "bet hedgers" would vote for a major party in the House and minor in the Senate. The Dems fobbed this themselves after passing the GST; now someone looking for the same effect in the Senate will vote Green (actively encouraged by Green candidates; I still remember Mike Stasse's 'never forget the Democrat's GST' sign). Slac speak up! 09:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selective deletion

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

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

[edit] WA Greens

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

I reworded it. I'm fuzzy on Greens history, but am I right in thinking that the paragraph two above ("The Greens gained their first federal parliamentary representative when Senator Josephine Vallentine of Western Australia, who had been elected in 1984 for the Nuclear Disarmament Party and later sat as an independent, joined the party") also needs clarification on WA Greens vs Aus Greens? --Calair 00:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. The entire history section really needs clarifying in this respect. It really needs to lay out exactly when each state group affiliated, and detail the working relationship between the parties during the 1990s (what links they had, if any, before 1996, and the working relationship between Margetts and Brown between 1996-98). It needs to make clear that Brown, Nettle, Siewert, Milne and Organ are the only people to represent the party federally, and stop trying to claim (at all) that Vallentine, Chamarette or Margetts were actually Australian Greens Senators. Ambi 00:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/u/s/Talk%7EAustralian_Greens_69d7.html"