DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Trang chủ
  2. Wiki

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

[edit]

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

"Israeli-Palestinian conflict

[edit]

The Australian Greens espouse a two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page). 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.Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page). 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.Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page). 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.Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page).

Some people affiliated with the Greens have been condemned for perceived antisemitism.Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page). 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.Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page). 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)[reply]

@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. TarnishedPathtalk 05:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I did read it. HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
So take it to the articles about those individuals (if the articles exist). TarnishedPathtalk 09:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Allegations against 1 MP and 1 staffer, not 2 MPs J2m5 (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. Insanityclown1 (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree. I believe that's where I was going with the above excerpt. DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 02:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Okay. Schestos (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my reading of the discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 12:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's your reading Tarnished? DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 12:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. TarnishedPathtalk 12:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One editors opinion I guess. DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 12:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. TarnishedPathtalk 01:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
That's fair. Apologies @TarnishedPath DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 01:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DeadlyRampage26, no worries. TarnishedPathtalk 01:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I came to this article late and merely note that the party's disgusting antisemitic slant has been whitewashed out of it. NPV? You've got to be kidding. Although in fairness I suppose it reveals that even Greens' supporters know that it is disgusting. https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/the-greens-crossed-a-line-and-australians-pushed-back-20250506-p5lwxs Quite amused by this actually. Greglocock (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The AFR is a Rupert Murdoch/Newscorp publication, no better than Sky News as an objective source on matters involving the Greens. HiLo48 (talk) 04:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but the blatantly left-wing Guardian is fine?? Double standards. DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 04:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That paper is owned by Nine Entertainment. The referenced article you are replying to is an opinion piece so it is obviously not acceptable for objective analysis in an encyclopaedia. Qwerty123M (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Really? AFR is owned by 9 Entertainment which is a publicly traded company with Bruce Gordon as its largest shareholder. Your Murdoch Derangement Syndrome is showing.Greglocock (talk) 07:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
9 Entertainment is now a blatantly right wing news outlet. HiLo48 (talk) 07:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you would think so. Let me guess, you think that Red Flag is neofascist and owned by Dutton's proxies? DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 07:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like you yourself are left-wing. Schestos (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I agree. Sadly the majority don't want any mention of the conflict on here. DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 04:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of the wiki-editor-authorised sources The Guardian is rather better than the ABC on reporting various Greens antics in this sphere. Leong, Faruqi, etc and the continued false equivalence with Islamophobia. Greglocock (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this talk page did not object to the inclusion of a section of views on this conflict, I would immediately use whatever information we have available but due to all these objections I think I'll hold off adding this valuable information. Qwerty123M (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Greglocock, written at the top of that article you posted is the word "Opinion" in blue lettering. Which means that WP:RSOPINION applies. It would be entirely WP:UNDUE to include the opinions of random talking heads. We're an encyclopaedia, not some WP:TABLOID. TarnishedPathtalk 07:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your squealing reinforces my point. Greens supporters know that the antisemitic behaviour of their elected representatives is disgusting to most people and hence has been whitewashed out of this article. No skin off my nose. Greglocock (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Greglocock citing policy is hardly “squealing”. Some civility and WP:AGF would be great. GraziePrego (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Left wing populism”

[edit]

Is there a better source than a singular opinion piece written by Nick Dyrenfurth (who is hardly an impartial figure) that describes the Federal Greens as “left wing populist”? Geelongite (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Their LinkedIn indicates that they have a PhD in history and political science. That would make them fairly qualified to speak on the subject. Could we have better sources? Perhaps, but when it comes to minor parties in Australian politics they can be hard to find. TarnishedPathtalk 12:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Originally that ideology was sourced to the 2013 academic piece by Ghergina, Miscoiu and Sorina, is there any reason this was undone? Dryenfurth is a notoriously partisan columnist and is probably no more reliable than the many opinion columns by figures such as Andrew Bolt calling the Greens a Marxist outfit. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except Bolt doesn't have a PhD in history and political science. Although I agree if there is a academic peice that would be preferable. TarnishedPathtalk 23:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, perhaps best to have both sources. Will Thorpe (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind Dryenfurth being replaced by Ghergina et. al. @Devonian Wombat do you know the name of the article and which database it's available from? TarnishedPathtalk 10:00, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath:, it's actually still cited in the article; the given link is this WorldCat one, but I was able to download it from Academia.edu here. I can confirm that the book has an entire chapter which deems the Greens left-wing populists, it's a pretty old work now but I'm not aware of any massive shifts in the politics of the party that would make it outdated. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the reference for left-wing populism. TarnishedPathtalk 11:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This Jacobin article is an okay source. The author has also written for GQ, New Matilda and Junkee. BlueMountainPanther (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jacobin is full of opinion pieces. Where we have better sources we should use them. TarnishedPathtalk 11:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jacobin is not officially considered reliable. GQ, however, is considered reliable. Without any consensus on the other sources that is readily available on the perennial sources page, you should just use these as you see fit but first create another post suggesting what to do next here. Qwerty123M (talk) 05:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary leader 2025

[edit]

The Guradian "Bandt has offered no comment on the future leadership of the party other than to say that the party whip, Nick McKim, would act in the role of caretaker until a new leader was elected." The owners of this article might feel like putting that back in. Greglocock (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]