Jump to content

Talk:Australian Greens

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by IdiotSavant (talk | contribs) at 03:50, 21 May 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconAustralia: Politics B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconAustralian 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed 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 non-editorial assistance.
WikiProject iconEnvironment B‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Political Parties

Archives

Pro-War Greens

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

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)[reply]

Agreed. Timeshift 10:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm with Rebecca on this one - links to external sites should be used sparingly. Orderinchaos 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_Greens&oldid=213873012"