Talk:Australian Greens/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Considering that during the ALP National Conference, Adam Bandt said that the Greens were Social Democratic (And that Labor was Neo-liberal), shouldn't we put that as the Party's ideology alongside "Green Politics" and "Progressivism"

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2023/aug/18/alp-national-conference-2023-day-2-aukus-unions-australian-labor-party-anthony-albanese-brisbane-politics-live

Check here for evidence MrFluffster (talk) 06:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I cannot see mention of Bandt in that link. HiLo48 (talk) 07:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@MrFluffster even if he did say that, and I'm not sure WP:RS exist given Hilo's comments, we should generally avoid self-ascriptions of political positions and prefer academic sources or at last resort journalists descriptions.

If you were to go read sone of Socialist Alternative's articles they would describe The Greens as Neo-Liberal. I'm not necessarily saying they're right or wrong, but why would we preference Green's self-ascription over other group's ascriptions? TarnishedPath^talk 07:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree self-descriptions are not particularly apt, and we should be seeking academic sources, rather than journalistic sources; but shouldn't we also be weighing up the party's policy? Nationalising banks, manufacturing, and housing, extending universal and free education and healthcare, and returning the right to strike and secondary boycott to workers and their unions are not liberal or neoliberal policies. They are democratic socialist (at most) or social democratic (at least) policies. Historicalmats (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

That is your own original research, and unacceptable here. We go by what reliable sources say. HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

So unless an academic decides to write an article describing a party's policy as being within a certain political ideology, we cannot describe a party's policy as such?

Does Nick Fredman's description of the Australian Greens as having a "strongly social-democratic nature" in "Watermelons or tomatoes? Social democracy, class and the Australian Greens." Capitalism Nature Socialism 24, no. 4 (2013): 86-104 count? Historicalmats (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Historicalmats, the appropriate Wikipedia policy concerning this is WP:ABOUTSELF. we can use sources where the subject talks about themselves, however there are limits to this. One of those limits is "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". Given that your edit attempted to remove an academic citation which referred to The Greens as having a ideology of "Progressivism" and use the words of Adam Bandt to justify a change to "Democratic socialism", that is what I would classify as unduly self-serving given the speech was marketing what Bandt wants others to think about The Greens in order to influence a section of the population to votes for them. At the simplest level you attempted to remove an academic citation and replace it with someone's subjective opinion about themselves. Given your own words "I agree self-descriptions are not particularly apt, and we should be seeking academic sources", I'm not sure what the point of your argument is. TarnishedPath^talk 00:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the engagement on this. I'm still very new to editing Wikipedia, so I appreciate you breaking this down.

I see and appreciate why the edit I made would not meet the community's standards. As such, I'll return to the question of whether or not Fredman's characterisation of the party is enough to at least add "social democratic" to the ideology of the party? Historicalmats (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Historicalmats, I'm sorry which citation is Fredman? I can't see it in the reference list. That's not the one you were attempting to edit in to justify "Social Democrat"? The authors name for that is Carly Douglas. It's not authors of the paper that is used for the term "Progressivism" that's Mark Chou and Rachel Busbridge. TarnishedPath^talk 01:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it wasn't the one I was editing.

It's this: "Watermelons or tomatoes? Social democracy, class and the Australian Greens." Capitalism Nature Socialism 24, no. 4 (2013): 86-104.

The author describes the Greens as having a "strongly social-democratic nature". Historicalmats (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Historicalmats, can you give me a quote of the relevant paragraph/s please. Access to academic databases through the Wikipedia Library isn't working for me at the moment. TarnishedPath^talk 07:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

"An understanding of the strongly social-democratic nature of the Greens is important because this will help us understand both how Green parties are likely to continue to respond in generally progressive and anti-capitalist ways to a range of social and economic questions, as well as to ecological questions, but also to understand how conflicts and contradictions within the Greens are likely to develop. This is not to deny that conflicts between ecosocialist and ecocentric tendencies may not occur but to contend that, as in the history of social democracy, conflicts between shades of leftism are increasingly likely, a contention supported by the nature of recent intra-party disputes." Historicalmats (talk) 10:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

No dice. Per his LinkedIn, he's not a subject matter expert in politics and we already have reliable sources that say progressivism. Social democracy falls within the spectrum of progressivism and it does account for the fact that the Greens have some more and less socialist elements. TarnishedPath^talk 10:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Bandt is a primary source. When secondary and tertiary sources exist, as they do here, we are advised against using primary sources. HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@HiLo48, Hisoricalmats was asking my thoughts on a particular source, "Watermelons or tomatoes? Social democracy, class and the Australian Greens." Capitalism Nature Socialism 24, no. 4 (2013): 86-104. I looked up the author though and they are not a subject matter expert on Politics. TarnishedPath^talk 01:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I do wonder Tarnished as green politics is cited on the Wikipedia page as Centre-left, if we ought also then move the greens to that position.

As the instances of "Left" green politics distinctly refers to Marxist or Red-Green policy.

The books backing up the "Left" position right now talk about left in a populist sense imo.

Might see if there is a subject matter expert that's written on this topic. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Just because the Wikipedia page on Greens politics says it's Centre-left we can't swap greens politics with centre-left. Per WP:WINARS, Wikipedia is not a reliable source as any random can edit it. Have you had a good read of the 4 sources used for the political position and the ideology? TarnishedPath^talk 16:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I've read the ones for the Position and they don't seem to back up the idea of them being broad left-wing.

Sorina Soare's book seems to suggest the greens are Left-wing populism and uses them to contrast Pauline Hanson's One Nation as the right wing populist party.

Paddy on the other hand doesn't appear to be a subject matter expert in Political philosophy. Most of their writings are either biographic in nature or Non-Fiction story telling, on par with certain opinion pieces from Jacobin or The Sydney Morning Herald when it comes to this topic. I'm having a hard time finding where on p. 411 the original citer was getting their information from. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest removing Paddy in the first instance as their LinkedIn suggest they're a journalist and biographer. When it comes to Gherghina et. al., I think a description of "Left-wing populism" satisfies for the political position of "Left-wing", remembering that political position is generally a very crude descriptor from far-left to far-right, not giving much nuance. If a better source is found we could use it but I think Gherghina et. al. is what we have for the moment. TarnishedPath^talk 23:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Welfare Policies of Greens

Article needs to address that in general Greens Welfare policies are more generous that those of Labor. That is an elephant in the room that no one talks about, but that is probably the biggest reason some people vote Greens. For me it's the only reason to vote Greens as I do not support most of their other policies.

Cost of Living | Australian Greens 49.197.167.158 (talk) 02:31, 24 March 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)

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)

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.

"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)