Talk:Australian Greens

Editing the ideology section

Currently the ideology section has only a bare "green politics", whereas most other green parties have at least some other labels which better illustrate their leanings, such as the NZ Greens. Though a label of "social democracy" like the NZ Greens has may be more difficult to find justification for, there are a multitute of articles which cover the internal centrist-liberal and eco-socialist factions of the party, in which the page could mirror its NZ counterpart. Another suggestion would be to label Progressivism as one of its ideologies, which could again be well justified both through the Greens claiming that moniker and being described as progressive quite widely.

fix the controversies section where it says novemeber 2024

In the section on the controversies that the party has faced it says one of the incidents happened in November 2024. This is a date that hasn't occurred yet and needs to be fixed. I am unsure on the actual date of this incident though myself so could someone who knows please fix this? Communistsam23 (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing our attention to that. I have deleted the paragraph, because it was sourced to Sky News, not a reliable source. See WP:RSP. HiLo48 (talk) 06:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Sky News should not be used for anything other than attributions to expert opinion and then only with care. TarnishedPath^talk 07:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I would like to know how a controversies Page was approved on here in the first place the other major parties in this country do not have such a page yet one was approved here I do not understand how this is ok for what it's worth I would not wish them to have a page like this either politics should be above this hence my reasoning for this question Magicmatzz (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

There are other political pages with controversy sections. It's less than ideal and sometimes can be dealt with by a simple renaming of the section. However the answer is never to remove well-verified information just because you might be hung up on a section title. TarnishedPath^talk 01:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Removing the controversy's section This section should be removed it was added to falsely push a political narrative and it is therefor misleading

These edits have no place on a factual site like Wikipedia. Liberal or Labor both do not have these pages nor would edits like these be approved on their page please do not allow these edits to stand Magicmatzz (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• It seems like well-verified content, and if you make an edit like that again, without consensus you will likely be blocked from editing the article. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
  • How would a person go about getting this content removed or once it's there is it now just permanent by the sounds of it Magicmatzz (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
  • t is probably not fitting for there to be dedicated controversy section on the page when you consider that other political parties within the Australian landscape do not have such sections - it could come across a biased to the casual reader. Yes, there are sources, but this very talk page acknowledges that some sources are not reliable ones, and at least two of the sources rely on quoting political opponents of the Australian Greens.
    I would also note the section is actually really short and seems to exist to create a narrative that the Australian Greens are antisemitic. We can reason this by the fact that "allegations of antisemitism" is the only item within the section, being created and sourced all on the same day. A passing knowledge of Australian political history would demonstrate that there are a few items that could be included in such a section, from the CPRS legislation debate to the disendorsement of candidates in the 2018 Victorian Election. Indeed, the current page does reference a disendorsed candidate from the Northern Territory as part of the allegations of antisemitism item but fails to mention any other disendorsed candidate from the party's history.
    This actually leads into a bigger problem with a controversy section, which is who exactly is the arbitrary of what is and isn't a controversy? If a candidate being disendorsed is enough to be classified as a controversy, then arguably the page of almost every political party should be covered with disendorsed candidates, at which point the pages would simply become a historic shit-list of (well sourced) dirty laundry that wouldn't actually provide much value to the reader wanting to learn more about specific parties. Apricot Bar (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Apricot Bar, this whole "seems to create a narrative" sounds like conspiracy theorizing. The argument you're pushing is pretty weak--because there's only one thing it's a "narrative", and it's arbitrary. No, it's not arbitrary, it's decided by the community what is in and what is out. That's what is happening below, by two or three editors. Drmies (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    • I took a look at the sources, and I'm not entirely sure why The Guardian would be considered a negative source, we all know that it is reliable. Like all the sources are well-verifiable, so I would like to know why HiLo48 removed it in the first place. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 03:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
      • The Guardian is OK, but it's the least critical of all those sources. The other sources are mostly Murdoch or Nine Entertainment, mortal enemies of the Greens. Criticism from them is not news. Not notable. If anyone can find ANY positive comment about the Greens from those sources, I will change my view. HiLo48 (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

        I feel that we should keep the Guardian source and its associated text inside the article, since that is the most verifiable and least critical source. I’m down to keep everything else out for the time being. Yoshi24517 (mobile) (talk) (Online) 14:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

        Too bad. To be balanced, you need both points of view. If you include just leftist sources you won't find any accusations or criticisms of a leftist party. I guarantee if this was an article about a conservative party your opinion would be different, in that you would want leftist sources to criticise the conservative. Schestos (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

      The Guardian may be reliable but it is left-leaning. The Australian is right-leaning, but it is also recognised as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Schestos (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

    • This is exactly what I do not want I do not want this to occur on any political parties page we all need to have positive politics in Australia Magicmatzz (talk) 04:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

      No, you don't need positive politics. You need honest politics. The greens deserve to have their dirty laundry aired just like any other party. Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Drmies I agree. Those arguing about there being no similar sections on other Australian political party articles should read what I wrote in my other thread on this talk page. Schestos (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with the removal or drastic reworking of the section. The vast majority of the cited sources are opinion pieces, which are not considered reliable (WP:RSP). It is also uncommon for other Australian or global political parties to have a section styled "Controversies". J2m5 (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think drastic reworking is a better option. I think its fair to include these sorts of things, the UK labor party does have a fairly lengthy section on the allegations of antisemitism during the Jeremy Corbyn era. Insanityclown1 (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly and I think the left-leaning editors trying to remove anything like this should be careful. @Bilby just accused a Jewish Liberal MP (Julian Leeser, the member for Berowra, someone I have met in person many times before) of accusing opponents of antisemitism for political purposes. Such comments are unacceptable, offensive and untrue. Schestos (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• I tried going through the main sources. I think it is important to distinguish between a member of the Greens being accused of making antisemitic comments and the Greens being accused of antisemitism as a whole. If the opinions of individual party members were extended to be the stance of the party, then the articles on all major Australian political parties would be very, very different. On those grounds, looking at the sourcs used for the claim "Due to their pro-Palestinian policies, the Greens have been accused of promoting or inciting anti-Israeli sentiment and more broadly antisemitism."

• [1] About the statement made by a single Greens MP in state politics, and she clearly states that she made a mistake. Does not say that the Greens were antisemitic.
• [2] Article written entirely by Liberal MP Julian Leeser. Not just opinion, but opinion of the opposition MP, and they have been heavily using accusations of antisemitism against their opposition of late.
• [3] Article by Philip Mendes. Much better commentator, but does not say that the Greens are antisemitic. Does say that they are clearly pro-Palestine, and that they do not do enough to speak out against antisemitism, but not that the Greens themselves are antisemitic.
• [4] Opinion peice by John Roskam, well known conservative commentator. Doesn't actually say that the Greens are antisemitic - just that they should be last on Labor preferences, and extensively quotes Lesser above.
• [5] Opinion piece by ex-Liberal MP Alexander Downer. Absolutely terrible article.
• [6] Article covering opinions of Dave Sharma, a Liberal politician. References a social media post by one Greens MP.
• [7] 12 year old opinion piece, so not sure if it is till relevant, but does not say that the Greens are antisemitic. Does say that a boycott that the Greens did not condem was antisemitic, and that the Greens should have denounced it.

I'm inclined to discount any opinion piece from a Liberal MP, because their accusations of opponents creating division and accusing opponents of antiseminism is standard for them today. Which leaves very little, and saying that party does not do enough to speak out against a particular view does not a controversy make. The rest of the claims in the section are all about individual people, not the party, and would be better covered in their relevant articles. - Bilby (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to say that statements like "Due to their pro-Palestinian policies, the Greens have been accused of promoting or inciting anti-Israeli sentiment and more broadly antisemitism" require references from academic sources who are subject matter experts in politics. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the closest is the article by Philip Mendes, but it is not so much "they have been accused" so much as "I am accusing them". If we are looking for secondary sources for it, I think that would be more of a challenge, but I would be very happy including the text if those are the sources we are using. I'll check what I have access to and see if anything comes up. - Bilby (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

So essentially what you and some other editors are saying is that only left-wing sources can be used. Left-wing sources won't be critical and they won't criticise the Greens for anything. To find accusations, you have to look at other opinions. If Wikipedia is neutral, why are you trying to make it progressive? Yes, I've been a Liberal voter all my life but at least I try my best to be as neutral as possible when editing Wikipedia. Also, to say that Liberal politicians (including Julian Leeser, a Jewish MP) are accusing everyone of antisemitism is an outright lie and I would strongly refrain from you making such claims. Leeser himself is Jewish, so stop being ridiculous. I get that you want this to be Greenpedia or Progressipedia but guess what: read WP:NPOV! This isn't Greenpedia or Progressipedia! We aren't RationalWiki either! Schestos (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It is a difficult topic. To start with, I don't feel that accusations of "person X made an antisemetic comment" should equate to accusations that the Greens are antisemetic. So any source which is about an individual, and not commenting on the Greens as a whole, is better employed on an article about the individual. I would be happy to argue the same in regard to Labor or the Liberals, but as neither of those has a controversies section it seems moot. More generally, at the moment we have a situation where the Liberal party has been getting good mileage out of arguing that Labor and the Greens are creating division, especially after the success of the No campaign in the Voice referendum. Dutton has been claiming that both are promoting antisemitism, and at times where he may not state it himself, other members of the party have made the claims. Accordingly, it is difficult to see what parts of those accusations are genuine and what parts are political. Which is why I agree with TarnishedPath. What I would like to see is neutral sources discussing this in relation to the Greens, especially academic sources, and we summarise what they are saying. - Bilby (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Bilby, that's a pretty solid argument. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

My edit on 16/4/24

I incorrectly stated that I put a space after [3], when I actually put a space after [12]. LackingLaxitives (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

"Antisemitism in the Australian Greens" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Antisemitism in the Australian Greens has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 28 § Antisemitism in the Australian Greens until a consensus is reached. AusLondonder (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Antisemitism

A while ago I added a detailed section with reliable sources regarding antisemitism in the party (a section that many editors contributed to and improved after I created it), but some editors, who I believe had partisan bias in favour of the Greens, seem to keep removing it, with some telling me to take it to the talk page.

The Greens have been widely accused of antisemitism and some antisemitism does exist in the party (very similar to how left-wing antisemitism has been reported in factions of the UK Labour Party, especially under Jeremy Corbyn).

I feel that some editors' silencing of antisemitism in the party by other editors is downplaying the issue of antisemitism.

Before the section was fully removed, the content started to shrink, with many reliable sources being removed. Among the sources initially removed were those from liberal/conservative viewpoints and from Jewish people, as well as sources from The Australian. Unsurprisingly, the section was eventually void of non-left viewpoints, including missing the antisemitic comments made by Jenny Leong that even she apologised for (she promoted a typical antisemitic and anti-Israeli trope at a pro-Palestinian rally).

As for there is nothing like this for the pages for any other Australian political party: I was actually considering making similar sections for other parties if I could find reliable sources and if the edits I made on the Greens article remained. Schestos (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You need to read WP:RS amongst other policies.

Wikipedia is not a platform for you to push your conservative politics against what you perceive to be Left-wing bias. It is a place for us to build a encyclopedia from reliable secondary sources.

If you keep on writing things like "I get that you want this to be Greenpedia or Progressipedia" like you did to an administrator, your time here won't be easy. TarnishedPath^talk 11:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Most of the sources that you cite are opinion pieces from Liberal Party politicians. I have not kept up to date fully with this matter but from my cursory glance it was clear that you do not have an interest in providing WP:RS – that is, news articles, not opinion pieces. J2m5 (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)