Talk:Australian Greens/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I would like the original Herald sun article if anyone could find it. Xtra 23:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text:  I hope you don't mean the article refered to here. Jgritz 14:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think you've just lost any claim of neutral intent, Xtra. Troyac 07:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Other parties' view of the Greens 

message: I'm going to pull the  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)
thread_title:  Greens template 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. 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)
thread_title: 'Watermelon' comments

message: Chris Maltby Chrismaltby by his own admission is the secretary of the Waverley Greens. Recent edits  made by him have to been to remove content critical of the Greens. Suggest that this may present a conflict of interest. Marple123 10:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I freely admit my political interest in the page - and it would be interesting to know the background and ideology of people who feel that it's important to include "content critical of the Greens" which amounts to anonymous hatefilled scribblings as if it were somehow encyclopaedic. I deleted the links because they should not be left unsupported on the page as if they contributed to anyone's understanding of the Australian Greens. Chrismaltby 10:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I added only one anti-Green website: http://www.greenswatch.com. The second site http://www.stopthegreens.org.au/ was added by a different person (appears not to have an account). --Marple123 11:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chris Maltby 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Structure

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Tanner quote

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

text: I guessed that was what was meant, but didn't want to correct without checking first. --Calair 04:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Firsts 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Greens & Democrats 

message: 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)
replies: text: Complete. Snottygobble 02:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Selective deletion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: WA Greens

message: Moved by --Steve  (Slf67)  talk  09:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Greens don't propose cannabis or methamphetamine be legalised - just their personal use be removed from the criminal code. The use of a health based, harm minimisation approach to recreational drug use/abuse instead of a heavy handed, selective and largely ineffective criminal approach (ie Prohibition) is consistent with the Greens principle of social and economic justice. Note that the Greens do not promote lesser penalties for the suppliers and manufacturers of currently illegal drugs - making their enforcement more consistent with illegal supply of presently legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco. Chrismaltby 01:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Drugs "legalisation" vs "decriminalisation" 

message: "Supporting the journalists contention however, the APC noted that: "Prior to the publication of the article, the reporter rang Sen. Brown's office asking for the Greens' policies. He was informed 'that all current policies were available on the website'"."
Context can be found here: 
"Given the sweeping and unqualified nature of the claims, the newspaper ought to have checked the veracity and currency of the policy claims. Prior to the publication of the article, the reporter rang Sen. Brown's office asking for the Greens' policies. He was informed 'that all current policies were available on the website'. There is evidence that, as well as any use made of the Party's website in writing the article, the reporter preferred other statements of Greens' policies, some erroneous and hostile to the Greens."
This hardly supports the claim that the disputed material came from Greens websites; if anything, it leans the other way. --Calair 09:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite agree. Furthermore, leaving the allegation in totally unsupported overrides the factual content which follows. It's worth noting in this context that the Herald Sun's Murdoch stablemates, the Sydney Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph ran a similar story with equivalent erroneous content prior to both the 2003 and 2007 NSW state elections.Chrismaltby 13:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Herald-Sun dispute

message: The recent reverted edits which show terms of office of Greens parliamentarians, synchronised with the date of a federal election are inaccurate and are in fact confusing. The dates are supposed to show when a MP took office & left office, not tell us in which year there was a general election. If you want years for general elections in Australia, these are easy to find. Furthermore, sometimes MP's resign mid-term - eg. Jo Vallentine in 1992 (not 1993 as the reverted edit states), and the term of office does not bear a relationship to election dates. If you want to indicate year of election, this can be shown in parentheses. I suggest this section be fixed up. Mrodowicz 05:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed Vallentine. Timeshift 05:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terms of Office for Greens Parliamentarians 

message: I'll give the editor the benefit of the doubt - how do the Australian Greens policies come under the banner of crypto-fascism? Timeshift 02:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea - the referenced articles are just reports of Liberal pollies slagging the Greens. If you wanted a reasoned argument that wasn't their purpose, or presumably, that of the contributor who thought it vital to add to the political ideology section here. Chrismaltby 07:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Crypto-fascism

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. Timeshift 10:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: I'm with Rebecca on this one - links to external sites should be used sparingly. Orderinchaos 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Other external links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Parliamentary leader 

message: If someone can go over the list i've added that would be good. Timeshift (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  State MPs 

message: Now would be a good time to update with the ACT election results, once they are finalised next week.  130.56.32.2 (talk) 05:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That can/is being done on Australian Capital Territory general election, 2008. Nothing further needs adding on this page. Timeshift (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACT Results 

message: suggest that we consider adding various titles, for example Dr Bob Brown - leader of the Greens in the Federal Senate, Shane Rattenbury, speaker of ACT Legislative assembly, Merideth Hunter, Leader of ACT greens etc 121.79.19.4 (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why the clutter is needed, their full name/abbreviations and positions should be in the lead of their articles. Timeshift (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  updated info or parliamentarians 

message: The Greens have recently won some big advances in Sydney's local council. (They have unseated Labor from Marrickville for example). Should this recent trend have its own section in the article? 203.214.28.145 (talk) 07:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Covered under "local government" at Greens New South Wales Sambauers (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greens in Local Government. 

message: None of the state parties have this label added to their infoboxes and it seems wholly out of place when the article it links to talks mostly about political parties of different international affiliation to the Australian Greens. The only reason I'm not deleting it straight away is because it has been there so long. Thoughts? Sambauers (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Surprised this one has survived this long - social progressivism is a social theory based in secular humanism, not a political position. I'm tempted to change it to progressivism. Orderinchaos 09:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Progressivism seems wrong 

message: A link to "Left Wing" was deleted from their info-box, because the Party itself does not describe itself as "left wing".  However, I don't think the party is a WP:RS for this kind of call: it seems pretty clear that most of their policies are left wing, so I think it should be retained, although it probably does need a reference. cojoco (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Left wing" by itself is pretty meaningless. Yes, the policies of the party broadly configure a position that is left of centre, but the words "left wing" actually say very little. Social liberalism or progressivism is probably a better description. Orderinchaos 09:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Left Wing" was deleted 

message: I have reverted the edit which links a quote from Bob Brown relating to the 1998 Queensland Election and one from Joe Hockey referring to everyone preferencing the Liberals last in a by-election in 2008. The linkage creates the impression that Brown was being hypocritical in 1998, or that the particular circumstances of the 1998-2001 rise of the One Nation Party would implicitly prevail indefinitely. Find a more WP:NPOV way to say why this is relevant to an article on the Greens generally, or specifically to the relationship with conservative parties. Chrismaltby (talk) 09:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * Several issues with the quote you proposed. First, it misses an important distinction between voter behaviour and party doctrine. Second, it picks up numeric results from one electorate (for distinct candidates) to characterise a whole nation (federal parties). Third, it ignores tactical voting by drawing simplistic conclusions, based on preferential votes which were not applied, for one of the least significant candidates at the election, receiving 0.68% of primary votes . Fourth, it doesn't present the facts. Elekhh (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

text: * Observoz, you make my point - by juxtaposing a 1998 media release from Bob Brown with a 2009 comment from Hockey (and where Hockey's main purpose was defending a decline in voter support for his own party) as if they were contemporaneous, you create a misleading (ie WP:NPOV) appearance of hypocrisy in relation to Greens preferences for conservative parties. And besides the enormous changes to the political landscape in the last 11 years, as Elekhh points out, it also ignores tactical considerations and the actions of individual voters. Chrismaltby (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Nation 

message: Any chance of a free pic anyone? Timeshift (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tammy Jennings]] 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tammy Jennings. Timeshift (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion discussion of [[Tammy Jennings]] 

message: Year	Vote %	MPs
1993	1.86% 	0
1996	1.74% 	0
1998	2.14% 	0
2001	4.96% 	0
2004	7.19% 	0
2007	7.79% 	0
Alex Douglas (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Two issues there, the Greens and other minor parties are Senate parties, their Senate vote should be stated as a Senate vote and presented as a Senate vote. Second, the Australian Greens weren't the Australian Greens until the 1996 election. 1993 shouldn't be there. Timeshift (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Parliamentary election history

message: Why is there a section on the responsibilities of each federal parliamentarian?
Why are there lists of every green member elected or 'notable'?
It seems very odd when compared to the alp, liberal party or even the democrats pages.. not sure what needs to change, it just feels weird when reading it.  182.239.159.208 (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The list of elected Greens members is normal for minor party pages (including the Democrats), but the rest I have to agree. Frickeg (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree it should be prose not lists. --Elekhh (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Who, members or noteables? Members should be in a list, noteables no. Timeshift (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the members should stay in a list, but everything else - senators' responsibilities, notable members, etc. - should be prose. Frickeg (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In regards to the top of the article, I managed to get away with five Senators, their roles and images, but I think doing the same with nine Senators is a bridge too far. Timeshift (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Portfolio responsibilities should be removed and put in individual WP:BLPs, or in a separate article, like First Gillard Ministry. The section could be cut-paste. --Surturz (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should have properly proposed here what you immediately did, which was to remove the material and create Current Australian Greens Alternate Ministry and seek consensus here. Alternate Ministries, particularly of minor parties are very different from a proper ministry in government. So, let us look for consensus. I suggest that your edits be reverted. --Bduke  (Discussion) 22:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternate ministry? LOL! I agree with Bduke. My reasonings are pretty much summed up here. It's the really long post at the bottom of that particular talk section. Timeshift (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  article structure 

message: Perhaps this article could be improved with a graph showing the greens number of (primary) votes over time? any one got one? --Hypo Mix (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty redundant in my opinion considering the mini table in the 2010 onward section. Timeshift (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Found one anyway if consensus changes http://greens.org.au/sites/greens.org.au/files/u543/Growth-of-Greens-vote_0.png --Hypo Mix (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graph 

message: The heading and some of the content screams of WP:RECENT. I much preferred the previous section, the new section mixes policies with what seems to be some people's agendas... I can't help but feel a pointy soapboxy-ness about it when reading it... thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that some of the text needs improvement and clarification. Some of it is just too vague (and, yeah Soapboxy). Saying the Greens "support" refugees, for example. Given that all major Parties support a refugee component in Australian immigration, I think this article should state what differentiates the Greens in relation to refugees ie do they advocate increasing the number of refugees, increasing funding for refugees, expanding the definition of refugees etc etc. Are they only referring to Asylum Seekers, or what? The text is not clear. Same goes for lines such as "prepare for peak oil" and "promote renewable energies". It's just too broad. Clearing it up will take elbow grease though. Observoz (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Policies change. We don't have what we have on this article, on the major party articles. Timeshift (talk) 11:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Recent policy positions" section within the article... 

message: "All four seats were retained in the 2006 election. After gaining 5 seats in the 2010 election, in April 2010 Nick McKim became the first Green Minister in Australia."
This sentance seems to imply that the greens have lower house seats in Tasmania unless i am somehow misunderstanding it.
"In the 2011 NSW State election, the Greens claimed their first lower-house seat in the district of Balmain."
This sentence seems to imply that the first lower house seat came in 2011.
There seems to be some innaccuracy here. ★★RetroLord★★ 08:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they have lower house seats in Tasmania. Tasmania elects its lower house via the Hare-Clark proportional system, similar (but not identical) to how the Senate is elected. The Greens have held seats in the Tasmanian lower house continuously since their formation in the early 90s. Meanwhile, I would say the Balmain one refers to their first lower house seat in the New South Wales Parliament. By all means clarify the sentence if you think it's misleading. Frickeg (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Innaccuracy 

message: Ok, I removed the pictures as I felt they were an unnecessary addition and stuck too much detail on the few current sitting greens, as compared to everything else greens party related.
I went to have a look at some other minority parties here in Australia and around the world, and from the ones I saw, no other page had pictures of all current parliamentary greens.
The 4 other minor political parties I checked have roughly comparable influence and seat numbers as the greens. (Apart from Katter)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Labor_Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Torah_Judaism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katter%27s_Australian_Party
Thanks, ★★RetroLord★★ 05:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a good comparison: one of the reasons those parties don't have images is that we don't have photos of all their members released on Wikipedia-friendly CC licenses as is the case for the Greens. I think that the photos add a fair bit of value to the article given that the Greens have never managed to get all that many people elected and their individual senators tend to have a high profile once they get in. Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a poor argument to use articles that lack any free use photographs (as Nick-D has pointed out above). I don't agree with them being laid out in a gallery style (a list could be better) but doesn't mean that the photos should be removed. Bidgee (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Seems you can't make up your mind. How is it undue? Did you just ignore what was said? Regardless, you'll need to gain a consensus for your removal. Bidgee (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well please provide some policy or precedent based reasons as to why my edits should be reverted otherwise I will keep them in. Thanks. ★★RetroLord★★ 09:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you need to gain a consensus! I'm restoring the stable version. Bidgee (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Please also note the previous discussion on this very same topic at Talk:Australian Greens#Use of photos of senators. --ELEKHHT 10:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Can you please stop with the accusations of bad faith and rude comments? Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of pictures explanation - Nick-D 

message: So, here are some proposals for discussion.
*Add Left-wing to the infobox
*Add Social Democracy
*Add Social Progressive or the like
These stances are all fairly well documented, and we all know the greens stand for things other than green politics as currently mentioned. When replying please avoid linking to a previous discussion, consensus changes. ★★RetroLord★★ 15:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any reliable and verifiable sources that are not vague? Bidgee (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone is pushing a POV here. You won't let it in without a 100% clear-cut reference? Half the article is referenced. Why are you so desperate to avoid having the greens labelled as left wing, or even socially progressive? Given that their policies are so blatantly socially progressive I didn't think I would have such a hard time getting that bit in there. ★★RetroLord★★ 15:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no POV on this matter, the burden is up to you to find supporting sources. Bidgee (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fact: University students are in general more left wing than an average member of society. It is probable you DO have a POV on this subject. Earlier your argument was that it was incorect, now your argument is it is unreferenced? Someone is pretty desperate to stop this getting into the article....★★RetroLord★★ 15:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you remove the above uncivil personal attack. Again, I have no POV and the burden is up to you to get a new consensus and find supported sources. Bidgee (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Uncivil personal attack? You sound like the guy at WP:AN or the like who recently proposed a ban over being called a "non-entity". ★★RetroLord★★ 16:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Because its pretty clear-cut the greens are left wing. One senator is a former communist party and another green did a PhD on marxism. Their economic policies are socialist, the social policies are very progressive. Hence the labels left wing and social progressive. In Australian media they are just reffered to as communists its so obvious, no citation required. ★★RetroLord★★ 06:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You're bit of a hypocrite to say that no citation is need for your own opinion, yet you wanted a source for something that is obvious. I'm getting a little sick of your attacks and the pushing the point editing, which in effect is bullying. Bidgee (talk) 08:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

text: A friend of mine did a PhD on yabbies. She isn't a yabbie. HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Lee Rhiannon ★★RetroLord★★ 07:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Mickey Mouse HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Goodness. The vanguards of the Greens wouldn't even let me add social progressive. ★★RetroLord★★ 23:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop your personal attacks, and try to engage in a constructive dialogue. See MOS:INFOBOX#Purpose of an infobox which states "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". Hence it is reasonable to say that if a party is best described by a particular ideology, than there is no need for further, more generic descriptions in the infobox. --ELEKHHT 01:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As by far the most socially progressive party in Australia, i'm pretty sure they'd be dissapointed to hear anyone describe that as irrelevant to their core ideology. Next to saving the franklin river and neo-marxism, I'd say social progressivism is right up there. ★★RetroLord★★ 01:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not one of the above comments said it was irrelevant. There are times on wikipedia when editors need to recognise that they are outside the consensus and that the time has come to shut up and concentrate on other concerns which are more likely to be important. That time has come for you, Retrolord, here. ELEKHH has it spot on. Stop personal attacks and accept that there is no need for further, more generic descriptions in the infobox. One is enough. --Bduke  (Discussion) 01:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Retrolord might do well to more carefully read the article and follow some links. The lead links to Green politics which tells us that "Green politics is a political ideology that aims to create an ecologically sustainable society rooted in environmentalism, social justice, and grassroots democracy...The party's platform is largely considered left in the political spectrum." So, much of what Retrolord wants listed separately is pretty much already encompassed by the term Green politics. It would be redundant to add elements already covered by that term. HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Labels in Infobox 

message: Hi all, since I'm lazy and my wiki-fu is horrendous I'll just make a couple minor suggestions and hopefully a kind editor, who wants to get their edit count up, will action them.
*Firstly the capitalisation after dot points in the article is all over the shop - not sure what the conventions is, but let's stick to one or the other.
*Under the 'Immigration' policy position is the statement 'support for a low population Australia'. I think they would argue that they support a sustainable population - and lest you think I am squabbling over semantics they specifically note that sustainability and population can be de-coupled with sufficient technology, distribution of resources etc... (see here) It might be kinder to say they support a 'sustainable' population and that at the moment this means a lower level of population growth. Wordsmiths can make that WP appropriate I'm sure.
*All of the above shouldn't be under the immigration tab, which implies that the Greens are opposed to population growth through immigration (they aren't).
*Under the same tab I think you could get rid of the 'support for refugees' because it's essentially a meaningless statement. I'm sure all parties claim that they are in favour of supporting refugees. Rather why not flesh out what the Greens think helps support refugees'. This might provide some inspiration.
All the best 203.38.24.65 (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for these very pertinent observations. I tried to address them, but surely there is still plenty of scope for further improvement. --ELEKHHT 03:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor improvements 

message: The Greens are clearly a left wing party. All their social and economic policies go from left to far left winged. The ABC and The Sydney Morning Herald has called the Greens far left (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/the-greens-loony-extreme-or-just-a-little-leftwing-20120710-21t4f.html), while others have put them of the left to far left spectrum (http://ldp.org.au/quiz/ozparties.html). Wikipedia even has them as a left wing party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Australia), (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_politics). They support most ALP policies, but have always tried to take them further. What is there to argue, they are clearly a (far)left winged party.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas11213 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See the extensive discussion above. This keeps coming up and there is no consensus to add left wing and also a strong consensus to keep the infobox simple. "Green politics" covers everything. --Bduke  (Discussion) 10:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Many wiser folk these days consider the traditional linear spectrum of political positions too simplistic. You are doing the right thing looking at sources, but your choices are not good. Another political party's view cannot be used. (The LDP.) The SMH article is one writer's opinion. It would need to be clearly attributed. (Is she important? I've never heard of her.) The entry in List of political parties in Australia is not sourced, so really shouldn't be there. That's actually a very poor article. HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people agree with Andreas11213 in saying that the Greens are a left wing party. All their policies are left wing and even go into far left. Yet the only reason you won't allow it to be added to the infobox is because it isn't "sourced" or the sources provided aren't good enough for you. Many people have argued their case only to be knocked back by HiLo48  and others for no particular reason.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.17.246 (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't about me. it's about reliable sourcing. Please click on that link and read the article carefully. HiLo48 (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

text: I agree with all of that, especially the thought that a simple label in an Infobox is of little use at all. HiLo48 (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Marxism is far left (http://www.marxistleftreview.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46:a-marxist-critique-of-the-australian-greens&catid=34:issue-1-spring-2010&Itemid=77). 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_political_parties
http://greens.org.au/policy All you need to do is look at their policies, they are clearly at least a left-wing party.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas11213 (talk 06:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Please don't change the article again until a change in consensus occurs here. So far, nobody has agreed with you. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed ad nauseam for years. I see nothing in this discussion to change the consensus view. Frickeg (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left Wing 

message: Why are we starting to do this? Timeshift (talk) 06:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  State MP numbers in lead infobox 

message: This one. Seems pretty pointless to have one for a party that's only got one HoR seat. We don't and shouldn't have it for Palmer or Katter. Timeshift (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I could go either way on this one. I think it's helpful to have the bits of the table concerning the changes in their vote over time, and I think (although less strongly) that it's useful to have the changes in seats over time. I agree that the house table is otherwise a bit pointless, and it takes up a lot of space and looks messy for the information it's trying to convey; however, I don't think the Senate table works without the House table. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we keep the HoR result table? 

message: I don't understand why there is opposition to including state and territory parliaments in the infobox. The only argument that seems to have been made against it, at the talk page for the liberal party, is that it serves no purpose to have the total number of state seats displayed. But there is a very clear purpose served by it: it shows the overall electoral strength of the party. This is particularly important with the greens, as one may wish to compare the overall strength of the party with other green parties worldwide.
More importantly, though, having only federal seats displayed in the infobox is incredibly inappropriate for a federal state like Australia. It suggests that the federal parliament is more important than the state parliaments, which is at best purely an opinion. State parliaments are just as sovereign and just as powerful in their areas of governance as the federal parliament, so if federal seats are to be in the infobox, state seats should be too. Colonial Overlord (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO it's a bit misleading to lump all the states and territories together in this way - I don't see how it helps readers understand the issue. The comparison is also somewhat problematic - the Greens do better in the states with proportional representation (Tasmania and the ACT) than they do in states with single member representation due to the way the electoral systems play out. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's original research: this figure is not coming from anywhere, it's reliant on calculations by Wikipedians and can't be easily checked against anything (for example to see if it's been updated after an election or six). The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And as well as the above - we've already got bar graphs for each state lower down in the article already, just like Lab/Lib. Timeshift (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

text: @The Drover's Wife: Calculations are NOT original research. Just as we don't need a reference to say that the sky is blue, we don't need a reference to say that 1+1=2. Notwithstanding that, I actually agree that adding up seats from different parliaments is not very useful and shouldn't be in the infobox. It would be more useful to have :File:AusGreensRepesentation.png updated and re-included in the article. --ELEKHHT 06:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Calculations are not original research "provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources", which in this case there clearly is not. I agree that this is not a useful figure, and not only does proportional representation destroy any kind of meaning it might have, the size of the chambers does too (five out of 25 in Tasmania is obviously rather different to, say, 5 out of 93 in NSW). Frickeg (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

text: I absolutely dispute that the number is "meaningful", for what it's worth. It is a totally meaningless figure, as a composite, that tells the reader nothing. I have no problem with the federal parliament being included and the state parliaments not. The federal parliament is, after all, the main game - it is the national government, as opposed to localised states - and this article is about the national political party. The state branches, FWIW, all have their own pages (as the major parties really should), and there, where the state parliaments are more relevant (and singular), they would be appropriate for inclusion in the infobox. Here, we have three options: (a) a meaningless calculation, (b) a stupidly cluttered infobox, or (c) the information being represented accurately and meaningfully in the article proper. (c) is the clear choice. Frickeg (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox seat numbers 

message: Interesting to see the Greens listed as democratic socialists in the InfoBox. It is unsourced but I wonder if the Greens ever referred to themselves as socialists outside of their claim that many of their supporters were "watermelons" (green on the outside, red on the inside). Their policies seem more social democrat than socialist. Then again there are those within Labor who claim the party is socialist so I guess actual policy has little to do with whether or not a party is socialist in this country. Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted confusing IP edits. Green politics is a much better descriptor, as extensively discussed above on this talk page. --ELEKHHT 12:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Socialist?

message: Actually, Australian Greens is centre-left party because Greens is in the centre-left politics. Everyone had argued about should we add this party "left-wing" in political position but how about "centre-left" for Australian Greens ? Because in page "Centre-left politics" in Wikipedia said it includes Greens.
Minhle20002013 (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the argument is not about labelling green politics left, centre or right. It is about being non-educational to use a hyper-simplistic left-right political spectrum in the 21st century when it comes to a party that rejects such reductionism, as per the multiple comments above. -ELEKHHT 12:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Green politics of Australian Greens exactly is left (include Centre-left) that why Green Party in UK and USA were labeled "left-wing'" in position.Did you find any policies of Australian Greens that connect to the right wing politics?Minhle20002013 (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just read again the above, follow the links, and come across things like "right wing and left wing, which originally referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament after the Revolution (1789–99)." ... "Political scientists have frequently noted that a single left–right axis is insufficient for describing the existing variation in political beliefs". --ELEKHHT 12:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Australian Greens: Centre-left?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Australian Greens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/political/greens-nod-sees-stanhope-keep-job/1349315.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120416005834/http://www.smartcompany.com.au/economy/20110224-carbon-price-to-begin-from-july-2012-midday-roundup.html to http://www.smartcompany.com.au/economy/20110224-carbon-price-to-begin-from-july-2012-midday-roundup.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091023154810/http://web.senate@aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rb/2004-05/05rb13.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/RB/2004-05/05rb13.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Australian Greens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060209143420/http://www.bobbrown.org.au/assets/200_Senator_Bob_Brown.pdf to http://www.bobbrown.org.au/assets/200_Senator_Bob_Brown.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110316143541/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/73A134BD8CA52844CA2572FB0014E42B to http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/73A134BD8CA52844CA2572FB0014E42B
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081020031826/http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/daily/2008/260608.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/daily/2008/260608.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100901072438/http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefsByGroup-15508-NAT.htm to http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefsByGroup-15508-NAT.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/01/2999219.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A wikimedia message was left for me indicating missing permission information. I was under the impression for years that Green parliamentarian photos were licensed under creative commons but upon review it seems ambiguous. As late as March 2016, the Greens website stated "This website is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Australia License". However, the current Greens website states "This website, excluding trademarked logos and images or content noted otherwise, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Australia Licence". When it says trademarked logos and images, are they referring to naturally trademarked logos and graphic images, and not photos? Or does the disclaimer read as excluding photos too? I'm pretty sure from memory that the Greens' intent is for their parliamentarian photos to be licensed under creative commons... perhaps those users on here who have at least some sort of informal connection might be able to get the webmaster to explicitly state that parliamentarian photos are counted as licensed under creative commons? Timeshift (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Di Natale photo listed for deletion? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Australian Greens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100905044256/http://greens.org.au/greens_labor_deal to http://greens.org.au/greens_labor_deal
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120728194138/http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/elections/state/State2012/results/summary.html to http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/elections/state/State2012/results/summary.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Australian Greens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403144238/http://greens.org.au/content/greens-support-un-backed-force-against-gaddafi to http://greens.org.au/content/greens-support-un-backed-force-against-gaddafi
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060712110212/http://greens.org.au/aboutusfolder/ to http://greens.org.au/aboutusfolder/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100623091820/http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/adj/1270.html to http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/adj/1270.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040818232243/http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/sandgategreens/Organisational%20Framework%20of%20the%20Australian%20Greens.htm to http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/sandgategreens/Organisational%20Framework%20of%20the%20Australian%20Greens.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.countryalliance.org/videos.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706125215/http://bob-brown.greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/greens-preferences-crucial-election-outcome-and-one-nations-chances to http://bob-brown.greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/greens-preferences-crucial-election-outcome-and-one-nations-chances
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified