Louisviljee

February 2025

"To be clear, the community independents known as “teals” don’t embrace that collective term – it was popularised by the media. Though many of them have shared supporters from campaigns funded by the Climate 200 action group, all have denied coordinating on political issues. And while most of them have rejected the idea of forming a party, others have done little to scuttle speculation.

The prospect of a “teals” party is compelling to many of those voters who decided long ago that Labor and the Greens weren’t for them, and who now realise that the moderate Liberals are extinct. If you have always thought that parties were a good idea, it is obviously frustrating to dislike all of the ones on offer." https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/comment/topic/2026/02/21/why-teals-party-bad-idea

If you can tell me who the 'editor' of the original article is, I'd be more than happy to discuss further with them.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Teal independents. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. GraziePrego (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe your article is incorrect. There is no such thing as 'teals' which is a term invented by Murdoch media and used by it and the Coal-ition to denigrate and pretend that Community Independents are in fact a party.

I'm happy to enter into discussion on this with you. Otherwise I shall declare a dispute to correct the entry to reflect the facts. Louisviljee (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

If there's reliable sourcing to dispute the current wording, then go for it. Happy to discuss on the article talk page. GraziePrego (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

It is hard to find authoritative articles to push back against this scurrilous term, but that doesn't mean it isn't scurrilous and coined in bad faith. I believe most thinking Australians recognise the MSM is awfully biased and drives its own right wing agenda. Here’s a piece by Tim Dunlop where he, amongst other things, pushes back on the 'teals' nonsense: https://tdunlop.substack.com/p/why-australians-citizens-are-ahead

Most journalists and even political commentators are also still stuck in the past and unable to see what is happening here. I suggest this article from the ABC clearly illustrates my point: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-20/teal-independents-who-are-candidates-what-electorates/101000412

It's part of the enshittification of our politics as Tim Dunlop eloquently argues in his latest delivery. https://tdunlop.substack.com/p/the-enshittification-of-australia

I'm very happy to discuss. email or telephonically may be easier? Louisviljee (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

We can only go by what is in reliable sources on Wikipedia, and I'm afraid someone's Substack won't meet that criteria. The Wikipedia article currently is clear that the term "Teal" is a moniker created by the media and not one that the Teals themselves came up with. GraziePrego (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

"Reliable sources"? The same fake news and propaganda we're fighting against.

Would you say there's a genocide been taking place in Gaza or do we need the "reliable sources" to also accept that first? And then we don't accept what the ICC, Amnesty International etc say. Perhaps you also think that Julian Assange should be back in jail in the US? While some of us still think the whole idea of Wikileaks and other Wikis were to pursue truth. Louisviljee (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Our personal opinions on things are not relevant here. On Wikipedia, we go by what's written in reliable sources. That's the basic rule by which the site functions. If we let people change things just because they felt strongly about it then the whole site would be locked up in edit warring in 5 minutes. If you don't like that, then I'm afraid there's no point arguing about it with me- this is a basic functionality of Wikipedia and it's certainly well above my station to try and change that. GraziePrego (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)