Talk:Australian Greens

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)

TarnishedPath I just want to note that suggesting The Australian – a widely trusted national broadsheet – and Sky News, a news channel with both opinion and standard reporting, are not reliable sources is silly. I have no opinion on the central matter being discussed. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Willthorpe, per WP:RSP in regards to Sky News Australia, In the 2022 RfC, there is a consensus that additional considerations apply to Sky News Australia, and that it should not be used to substantiate any exceptional claims. The talk shows for Sky News Australia engage in disinformation and should be considered generally unreliable. The majority of articles labeled as "news" contain short blurbs and video segments, which should similarly be considered unreliable. TarnishedPath^talk 11:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a fair judgement for a 24-hour news channel with much opinion content as well as news. It depends then on what material from Sky News is being cited. Anyway, I just wanted to state that it would be wrong to categorically rule it out – though I will always have a preference for newspapers (online included) and public broadcasters. Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Willthorpe, in my last revert that wasn't the only issue with sourcing I listed. There was also usage of primary sources and an opinion peice (https://fathomjournal.org/progressive-except-for-jews-pejs-the-australian-greens-and-the-7-october-hamas-death-squad-massacre/). Given the contentious nature of this stuff we'd need reliable secondary sources for this stuff. Also I didn't think it was good enough to put one or two politicians forward as if they are somehow representative of the whole party. If the stuff has good sourcing for individual members/politicians then it probably belongs on their articles. TarnishedPath^talk 11:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

That is fair. I only went by what was in your edit description, but otherwise what you have done seems sound and in keeping with the standards we should follow. Will Thorpe (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Left Renewal faction

@DeadlyRampage26 in regards to your recent edits, sources I've found make it clear that Left Renewal was/is a faction that existed within the NSW Greens. It would therefore not be appropriate to add it as a faction of the national body. As an example see this. TarnishedPath^talk 06:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

As a reference for below comments, this was what I was attempting to add:

"Israeli-Palestinian conflict

The Australian Greens espouse a two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The party believes that Israel has illegally blockaded the Gaza Strip since 2005 and wishes for Israel to withdraw the blockade of Gaza and remove all military forces from the region. The party believes that Israel has and is committing genocide in Gaza and demands that Israel complies with all International Court of Justice rulings on the matter. During the parliamentary sitting following the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, the Greens voted against condemning the Hamas attack on the basis of Israeli apartheid allegations.

Some people affiliated with the Greens have been condemned for perceived antisemitism. Jenny Leong, an elected Greens representative in New South Wales was condemned widely in 2023 due to the resurfacing of a clip in which Leong stated of Jews that 'their tentacles reach into the areas that try and influence power', among other comments. Mehreen Faruqi's chief of staff said that the 2024 Melbourne synagogue terrorist attack may have been a zionist false flag attack, which later led to reprimand by Faruqi herself."

TarnishedPath, among others before him, have repeatedly removed content regarding the Greens policies on Israel, despite a well-sourced addition that represents viewpoints fairly. Some might see this as an attempt by editors to whitewash acts of Antisemitism perpetrated by individual elected representatives of the Greens.

The above excerpt has blank sources, however sources i added to it prior to reverting were crosschecked by myself along Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Deprecated sources.

Does anyone have an objection to re-introducing this to the article in a non-biased manner, and if so, why? Thanks

DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 05:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Pinging @J2m5, @Schestos, @Willthorpe, @Apricot Bar, @Bilby, @Drmies, @HiLo48, @Insanityclown1 and @Magicmatzz as editors involved in the two related discussions at the top of this page. TarnishedPath^talk 05:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@DeadlyRampage26, a big problem with a lot of the stuff you're editing is the sources attribute acts of antisemitism to individuals, not the party as a whole. Presenting the material as if the Greens have a policy of antisemtiism is a massive misuse of sources. If the details about the individuals is significant then I would suggest it belongs on the articles about those individuals. TarnishedPath^talk 05:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I do understand, but even if it is the individuals, it is widely notable and often attributed to the Greens as a party on both sides of the political spectrum. Would It be better to drop the Leong controversy to put on the NSW Greens page but leave the Faruqi staffer statement and subsequent condemnation by faruqi? DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 05:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I was pinged and I will make my usual comment on matters such as this. Criticising actions of the Israeli government is NOT antisemitism. More specifically, comments from individual members of the Greens must never be represented as Greens' policies. HiLo48 (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess you didn't read any of what was mentioned in this discussion then. Have a nice day! DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 07:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I did read it. HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, so you would understand that:

1. no criticism of the Israeli government was connected with antisemitism here.
2. This was not a discussion to add an antisemitism section, but a broader Israeli-Palestinian one.
3. The 2 anti-Semitic acts that were mentioned were actual antisemitism and saying otherwise is whitewashing. The first of the acts was a Greens MP stating, loosely, that Jews have tentacles and are corrupting community groups. The second act was stating that Jews and Israel were responsible for the arson terrorist attack at the Melbourne Synagogue.

Wouldn't you agree? DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 09:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

So take it to the articles about those individuals (if the articles exist). TarnishedPath^talk 09:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

We'll have to see what the other editors think first. I still disagree with not having any mention of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on here. DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 09:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

2 mps being openly antisemitic hardly seems worth attributing to the party as a whole here. In the case of the British labor party, which I mentioned in a different discussion this page, part of the problem is that the party actually had longstanding internal issues that weren't being addressed. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Allegations against 1 MP and 1 staffer, not 2 MPs J2m5 (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Insanityclown1 (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with this change because the Leong one cannot be taken to represent the subject of this article as a whole, and the Faruqi staffer one is not even a Greens MP, it's a member of staff. How a staffer's actions can be taken to represent the article subject as a whole is, to me, a bit like saying "x person employed by politician posts this to social media, thus it is now the position of party." The wording being used in the given example has weasel words all throughout and to an extent would be in contravention of WP:OR because a narrative is being invented by the editor in question using multiple sources. Why is there this concerted effort to include this in this article and no such effort for, eg, an "Islamophobia" section for the Liberal Party article, when they have had MPs and staffers who have had similar allegations of perceived Islamophobia, eg Jessica Whelan, Peter Dutton, Cory Bernardi, the list goes on? Both sections would be inappropriate for either article because they are matters that concern individuals. These contributions would be suited to the individual articles on Leong and Faruqi. Another heads up on the first paragraph, for whether the article subject supports a two-state solution, that is difficult to discern and would need multiple references to support it, eg this resolution (not sure of the date) does not seem to support it. Does anyone know more about the article subject's position? J2m5 (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Again. For the whatever'th time in this conversation. this discussion is not to add an Antisemtism-only section. It is to add an Israel-Palestinian conflict section. DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 11:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I ever suggested you were adding an "antisemitism only section"? I was saying that I strongly object to the contents of the second paragraph for the reasons outlined above. The second paragraph details allegations of antisemitism made against two individuals which, according to you, belongs in this article. I and most others disagree. I think it says a lot that you have to portray a distorted version of my argument in order to rebut me, and avoid making a substantive response... J2m5 (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree a section should be added but it should be neutral. Include criticisms from both sides. Schestos (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I believe that's where I was going with the above excerpt. DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 02:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@HiLo48 @TarnishedPath @J2m5 @Schestos @Insanityclown1 Based on this discussion, have we come to a consensus to add the party's Israeli-Palestinian conflict policies, but leave out the antisemitism? DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 12:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Schestos (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not my reading of the discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 12:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

What's your reading Tarnished? DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 12:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

We understand that you seem to have a pro-Greens bias on occasion, but what's the harm in doing something that no one other than you have objected to? DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 12:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

You should leave your ill-informed judgements about other editors out of discussions. That aside I don't think that the material has been demonstrated to be significant enough for inclusion. TarnishedPath^talk 12:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

One editors opinion I guess. DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 12:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with TarnishedPath. I don't think that this warrants inclusion in this case. I would need to see reliable sources showing that this is a systemic issue within the Greens party apparatus, rather than a politician and a staffer being horrible people. Insanityclown1 (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

again. This is about the section on the conflict itself. I think we have ruled out adding any antisemitism info to the page DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 01:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have some information about the party's position on the Israel invasion of Gaza, I'm surprised it's not already mentioned under "policy positions". The Greens have definitely been very vocal about several positions and it's possible to include those neutrally; we can say "the greens oppose the war (citation), the greens have called for Australia to sanction Israel/expel the ambassador (citation)," etc etc. GraziePrego (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd want to see some specific wording and sources which are more than just quotes (primary sources for the usage). I don't think that DR26's first paragraph in the proposal above that started this discussion is good enough given that it was largely supported by quotes. I'd be much more comfortable with analysis in a secondary sources and letting that determine what the content is. TarnishedPath^talk 01:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@DeadlyRampage26, you shouldn’t be accusing @TarnishedPath of having a “pro-Greens” bias, especially when the first sentence of your user page is “DeadlyRampage26 does not support the Australian Greens due to entrenched antisemitism and anti-Zionism within their ranks, as well as their policy's effect on rural and regional towns that rely on key industries that the Greens wish to shut down.” If you’re strongly openly opposed to a particular party, you probably have a bit of a COI about editing their page. GraziePrego (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

That's fair. Apologies @TarnishedPath DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 01:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@DeadlyRampage26, no worries. TarnishedPath^talk 01:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Based on this article and this policy document the Greens do not explicitly support a two state solution.

It also lacks context of the Greens condemning Hamas. BlueMountainPanther (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I've heard a few greens say in parliament they want a two-state solution but I cant really find it in media, also, we've established here that individual Greens MP's can't be used to represent the whole party's views. Secondly, we can't use primary sources on Wikipedia. DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 11:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

If it's after June 2023 of a Green MP saying they support a two-state then search hansard for it. It's the view of the whole party that a two state is "unachievable" not just a few MPs. The ABC article that I attached a link to is a secondary source. BlueMountainPanther (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)