Talk:Australian Greens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 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 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.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments
WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject 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.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Political parties, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of political parties-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to "featured" and "good article" standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. [View this template]
Portal
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.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Australian Greens article.
Article policies
Archives

Contents

[edit] Pro-War Greens

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

[edit] Links

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

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

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

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

Agreed. Timeshift 10:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
That was my point too - the bias allegations are a smokescreen for the undeclared bias of the people who want to promote their ravings. Chrismaltby 00:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you referring to the links User:Prester John keeps adding >>HERE<<? I was reading the article today and found those crazy links down the bottom didn't think such sites are befitting for an encyclopedia.--Lester2 03:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I reverted User:Prester John's recent re-addition of external links to two anonymous anti-Greens hate/smear sites as the links quite clearly don't comply with WP:EL. I left the note below on his talk page about this. Peter Campbell 11:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:EL before adding partisan links to determine whether they comply with this policy. Adding links to hate/smear sites to political party websites doesn't fit with encyclopaedic content. You could also review other party articles to see the external links they have. Peter Campbell 04:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Rebecca on this one - links to external sites should be used sparingly. Orderinchaos 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

It's getting close to that stage for sure. Chrismaltby 07:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Timeshift 07:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other external links

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

[edit] Parliamentary leader

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

Only if we get to include Monarch in there as well :-) FWIW, it has been established that infoboxes don't have to be the same. Since it improves the article, I reckon it should be in there. Shot info (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
So how does it improve the article? Did you think Bob Brown was a symbolic leader like some of those weird wacko freaky fringe parties? Also, infobox consistency is preferred, just not a necessity. Timeshift (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)