Talk:Independent Together

Ownership, misinformation, and fair editing process

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi all – I’m Dan Milward, a candidate under Independent Together. I’m editing transparently with full sourcing.

However, the current revision:

• Misrepresents criticism as fact
• Omits key context around the group's formation
• Excludes important details on candidates, events, and policy positions

📌 Key facts needing addition or correction:

1. Group launch & meetings

  Independent Together launched a “Zero Rates Increase Roadshow” on 15 June, with events in Karori, Hataitai, Tawa, and Newtown  [oai_citation:0‡wellington.scoop.co.nz](https://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=171473&utm_source=chatgpt.com).

2. Zero-rates pledge and platform

  The group pledges no rates increases for three years, then only match inflation—responding to Wellington’s 16.9% hike for 2024/25  [oai_citation:1‡en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Together?utm_source=chatgpt.com).

3. Group composition

  Eleven candidates—including Ray Chung for mayor, and council hopefuls Ken Ah Kuoi, Andrea Compton, Lily Brown, and myself—are listed on the official site  [oai_citation:2‡en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Together?utm_source=chatgpt.com).

4. Leadership & campaign focus

  Ray Chung, current Onslow-Western councillor, leads the ticket, promising cost cuts to council jobs and rejection of party politics in local government  [oai_citation:3‡wellington.scoop.co.nz](https://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=171244&utm_source=chatgpt.com) [oai_citation:4‡rnz.co.nz](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/563266/wellington-mayoral-hopeful-ray-chung-promises-to-slash-council-jobs?utm_source=chatgpt.com).

5. Endorsements

  Better Wellington endorsed Ray Chung and ten Independent Together candidates  [oai_citation:5‡betterwellington.org.nz](https://betterwellington.org.nz/strongest-team-in-over-20-years-contests-wellington-city-council-elections/?utm_source=chatgpt.com).

✅ My request:

• Review and consider reintroducing these factual points—missing or misrepresented while sourced.
• This is about accuracy—not promotion.
• Current edits risk WP:OWN behaviour by erasing sourced, relevant content without discussion.

Let’s improve the article based on reliable sources and community consensus, not gatekeeping edits.

Thanks, Dan Milward (Independent Together – Pukehīnau/Lambton) Danmilward (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

4 of those points are already included, the first point can you find a better source than a press release by the group? TheLoyalOrder (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Dan, thanks for your transparency here.

It's important to note that press releases from affiliated organisations are not considered reliable secondary sources as they are not independent. Scoop is therefore usually not a reliable source here. You also cannot source statements to Wikipedia itself using ChatGPT. Press releases by Better Wellington are also not acceptable as they have endorsed this ticket, which means they are not independent either (those PRs are, however, fine for citing the fact that they have that endorsement).

I have gone over the article and both removed and added some material to improve the neutral point of view and verifiability. If you have other concerns about the neutrality, please let us know here and independent editors will review it. The reality is, Wikipedia is not a platform for self-promotion, or here to reflect any one person's view of the facts. Our purpose here is to neutrally reflect what has been written about the group in other reliable sources. You may not agree with everything that is written about you, but the key thing is they are things written about you, not written by you.

I notice you have been blocked for edit warring. After that block expires, please refrain from editing the article directly, or the block is likely to simply be reinstated, possibly permanently. We're happy to continue reviewing edit requests on this page, however. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 01:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi David,

Thanks again for your earlier response. I’m still new to Wikipedia and doing my best to understand and follow the process. That said, I believe there are serious neutrality issues on the Independent Together article, and I’d appreciate your view on two specific concerns:

Issue 1 – Misleading summary of policy position

The article currently states:

The key promise made by the group is that they will not increase rates... As of April 2025, the group had yet to decide what would be cut to achieve this.

This is incorrect and outdated. I attempted to update it with a **reliable, independent source**:

👉 https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/360721024/vision-wellington-finds-28b-council-savings

The proposed update was reverted, despite it directly addressing the “what will be cut” question using a credible news report.

Issue 2 – Removal of the group’s core pillars

Attempts to neutrally include Independent Together’s official pillars have been repeatedly reverted, even when phrased carefully. Saying they are “included in prose” is not the same as actually listing or attributing them.

I’ve requested discussion and offered compromises, but those efforts are being blocked, often by politically aligned editors. This undermines Wikipedia’s WP:NPOV policy and creates a skewed impression of the group.

I’m raising these two examples specifically to show that this isn’t about removing criticism — it’s about ensuring balance and factual accuracy, especially during an election period. I’d welcome your guidance on how best to proceed.

Thanks,

DanMilward Danmilward (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that Dan.

Regarding the first source, it doesn't seem to actually mention Independent Together? It seems to be about another group called Vision for Wellington. Therefore it isn't clear to me what relevance it has to this article.

Regarding the second, the article currently states: The group would campaign on policies it described as its "core pillars", such as ensuring council is only funding the "basics" (water infrastructure, rubbish collection, parks, and roads), bringing back "accessibility" to the city by restoring removed car parks, and making the city safer. The group would also campaign on opposing party politics on the city council. What changes would you propose to this? It seems accurate from the cited source. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 05:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi David Palmer. Thanks for the feedback. I'm doing my best here.

I believe a good primary source is the official Independent Together campaign website – that explicitly lists the Five Pillars under the heading "OUR FIVE PILLARS":

• ZERO RATES INCREASES – Keeping Wellington affordable
• BACK TO BASICS – No more debt spiral
• ACCESS BRINGS BUSINESS – Planes, trains, buses and automobiles
• NO TO PARTY POLITICS – A Council for everyone
• A SAFER CITY – Wellington, where everyone feels secure

Source: https://voteforit.nz/policy-pillars/

This directly supports the Wikipedia text regarding “core pillars” covering affordability, essential services, accessibility, safety, and opposing party politics. It neatly aligns with what’s already written and gives a verifiable citation.

Proposed action: I’ll update the article to cite the campaign site for that section. That way, the description of the Five Pillars is backed by a clear, official source – not just interpretation in secondary media.

Let me know if you’d like me to drop in the citation now.

Cheers,

Dan Danmilward (talk) 05:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the first source.

Louise Tong (in the Vision Wellington annoucement) who spoke at the event worked closely with Indepentdent Together and Ray Chung alongside Andrea Compton from the Independent Together team.

I am 100% confident she would verify this.

How can I do that / what would you recommend as a next steps? Danmilward (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Kia ora Dan, I appreciate your suggestions. I'll say that you should avoid editing the article directly because of your COI.

The information on the pillars is already present so I'm not sure what you're suggesting to add exactly? You want the exact phrasing used here? I think its kinda promotional compared with whats written in the article currently

There probably some minor details we could add from that source you suggested, such as Tong appearing to endorse Chung. otherwise the article doesnt paint a direct connection as saying that is IT's policy so we couldn't include it.

Cheers TheLoyalOrder (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, TheLoyalOrder — I appreciate that you've engaged, but at this point I'd rather continue this discussion with editors who aren't involved in ongoing off-wiki commentary about this topic. I don’t doubt your efforts, but neutrality requires distance as well as diligence.

To clarify: what I’m asking for is simple — that the group’s official policy pillars be included or clearly summarised. This would give ratepayers, voters, and the general public a clearer picture of what the group stands for. That’s not promotional — it’s factual, verifiable, and balanced when included alongside criticism.

I will follow up with David and others regarding next steps.

— DanMilward Danmilward (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your proposal to add that list, the formatting and content of that list are not encyclopaedic and not in line with the manual of style. Additionally, the tone is obviously quite promotional, which is also not acceptable in the MOS. By my reading, the policy platform/pillars are accurately described in the article already. What I've done is added citations to the website as a primary source; however, as has been explained, that website is not independent of the subject, and therefore cannot be used as a standalone reference for things. Frankly, I would be unsurprised if another editor objected to me adding that and removed it.

Regarding Tong's views on things, if you can provide a reliable secondary source that her views on things are also the views of this political group, and that she is formally associated with the group, I would be happy to add those facts. I'm afraid we can't just take your or her word for it.

I've had a dig around on your website and can't see anything on your plan for making the rates freeze affordable, so adding some further material on your website around that subject would be a good start. But again, your website is not a reliable secondary source. For your information, The Post/Stuff, NZ Herald, Otago Daily Times and RNZ are generally the gold-standard for what we consider reliable news sources in NZ, so if you can get one of them to run an article about this group's plan for cutting rates we can include that here, no worries.

I appreciate that you've been respectful and engaging in good faith. The point I really need to underline for you however is that Wikipedia is not a place where we determine the WP:TRUTH of a matter; we are only interested in verifiability, i.e. what has been written in external, independent, reliable secondary sources. I appreciate that you feel you know what is written here does not align with your understanding of the group. Wikipedia editors are neutral and cannot "know" anything on the subject; all we can do is summarise what has been written about your group elsewhere. My appraisal is that the article broadly does this, so does not need to be changed a great deal. If you would like to change the article, you will need to change what has been written about the group in reliable secondary sources. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 06:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit request

Note: This section has been moved from User talk:TheLoyalOrder

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello. I’d appreciate your help in updating part of the Independent Together article to reflect a more accurate summary of the group’s position.

This section currently reads:

The group would also campaign on opposing party politics on the city council. Chung says he has never belonged to any political party. According to Chung, some of his colleagues had stated that the group was "a right-wing party" but he rejected this, saying he didn't know what the political affiliations of any of the candidates were.

Here’s a suggested alternative that more accurately reflects our public statements and platform:

The group campaigns on opposing party politics on the city council. Chung states he has never belonged to any political party, and the group’s public pillars are focused on fiscal responsibility, essential services, and local governance. While some opponents have described the group as “right-wing,” Chung has rejected this characterisation, stating he doesn’t know the political affiliations of any other candidates.

Open to discussion, of course — just keen to ensure balance and clarity.

Thanks, DanMilward Danmilward (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

this doesnt match the source and has loaded terminology TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.

Could you clarify what specifically is “loaded” or doesn’t match the source in the proposed revision?

The terms “fiscal responsibility,” “essential services,” and “local governance” are pulled directly from our publicly stated material — and reflect the group’s actual focus. If a reliable secondary source is required to reinforce those terms, I’m happy to provide one.

I’d also note that the current version paints the group — and by association, its individuals — with a political label (“right-wing”) that we’ve explicitly rejected. Continuing to frame us that way, after that clarification has been made in good faith, is misrepresentation. I believe this goes against the principles of WP:NPOV and arguably WP:BLP.

Happy to refine the wording collaboratively — I just want to ensure the article reflects balance, accuracy, and what’s actually verifiable.

— DanMilward Danmilward (talk) 04:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to copy this to the talk page of the article since that's the more relevant spot to have this conversation TheLoyalOrder (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

The article lays out the groups policy as reported in reliable independent media sources. A press release by the group is not an independent source.

No where in the article does it state the group is right wing. The article uses the term in quoting Ray Chung saying he rejects that it is, in stating other individuals and orgs asociatied with the group are, and when its clarified as the opinion of one satirist. The sourcing on this is to RNZ, NZHerald, and The Post TheLoyalOrder (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the discussion.

You're right that the article doesn't explicitly say “the group is right-wing” — but the overall structure and weight of quotes from critics, without balancing context or neutral summaries of our actual positions, leaves that impression. That’s exactly why I raised the concern: it reflects a framing issue, not a quote accuracy issue.

Independent Together is not a political party. We’re a group of people from different backgrounds and voting histories, including people who’ve voted for Labour, National, Greens and others. A more accurate description, and one I’d support including, would reflect that diversity.

For example, at a recent roadshow I spoke with a pensioner who was moved to tears about her rising rates and fear of having to sell her home. Wanting to represent people like her and advocate for a Zero Rates Increase — or even one aligned with inflation — isn’t “right-wing”; it’s a civic issue that affects everyone.

If you believe certain terms need a better source, I’m happy to hunt for them — but can we agree that neutrality isn’t just about quoting criticism; it’s about structuring the article to reflect a fair and balanced overview.

— DanMilward Danmilward (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

unfortunately we cant source the conversation with a pensioner you had. Every source states your group is a political ticket except ones released by your group. I've added information from every reliable source I could find, if you find more feel free to post them here and me or some other editor will take a look.

I think the issue you will have is that all the sources frame the group as right wing or imply it, you will have to take it up with RNZ, The Post, NZHerald, The Spinoff, and Stuff. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks — I understand your point about sources, and I do appreciate that you've gathered and added a lot of content.

But just to reiterate: the issue isn't with any single quote or source. It's with how the article currently overemphasises commentary that frames the group politically, while minimising or excluding the group's own stated goals or values — unless they’re immediately followed by refutation or scepticism.

That kind of weighting creates an implicit bias, even if every sentence is technically sourced. And that’s what I mean by a framing issue. Neutrality, in practice, is about how content is presented — not just what’s cited.

I will continue to find additional sources to help round things out. I just want to work toward an article that better reflects the full picture.

— DanMilward Danmilward (talk) 05:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for you to campaign, or to present your own view of yourself. Our purpose here is to accurately summarise was has been written about this org in reliable secondary sources. Having read all the sources, my appraisal is that this article accurately reflects what has been written about this group in reliable media outlets. This is what we mean by WP:NPOV. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 04:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

And certainly, if you can find additional reliable sources, we can continue to expand the article from those. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 04:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks David — I understand and I appreciate your clarification.

I’m going through additional sources now and will suggest edits based strictly on what’s verifiable in those. I’m not looking to promote the group — just to ensure the article reflects its purpose and platform alongside the critical commentary already present.

Appreciate you keeping the discussion grounded.

— DanMilward Danmilward (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Misinformation

Note: This section has been copied from User talk:Liz

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi Liz,

I'm reaching out as an ordinary contributor — a dad, technologist, and community volunteer — seeking guidance and admin oversight regarding the Independent Together article.

It appears a small group of politically active users — including User:IdiotSavant and User:TheLoyalOrder — have been coordinating edits that I believe violate Wikipedia’s WP:NPOV and potentially WP:COI policies.

- User:IdiotSavant is a known political commentator [redacted] - Both users have engaged in public commentary and mockery of the Wikipedia editing process on platforms like [redacted].

I’ve attempted to engage in good faith and have raised concerns on their talk pages. However, the editing pattern increasingly resembles activism rather than neutral contribution — and it’s having real-world impact during an active election period.

Whether these individuals agree or not, Independent Together is a non-political civic-focused group trying to maintain accurate, balanced representation. These editors are actively blocking attempts to add even our own pillars to the article or reflect both sides fairly. It's become unmanageable.

I’m unsure what the next step is, but I’m requesting admin review of the situation.

I’ve posted a screenshot below as proof of the external coordination happening around this article:

File:Idiotsav-screenshot-misinformation-campaign.jpg

Screenshot of external coordination and public commentary on the article.

Thanks for your time, DanMilward Danmilward (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

DanMilward has repeatedly removed all criticism and replaced much of the content with information from a press release by the group he represents as a political candidate. His conspiracies that multiple editors who don't know each other are conspiring are unfounded.

I have over 6000 edits, mostly in the area of local government in New Zealand.

Idiot Savant has not added any content to the page, he has only reverted Dan's COI edits. I have added most of the content, and I have done so to the best of my ability to abide by NPOV.

Dan has not attempted to engage in good faith at all, his comment on the talk page either listed "missing information" that was already included or had bad sources (i.e. IT press release detailing candidate events, wikipedia isnt an event planner)

I don't know why he says we have blocked him adding the groups policy pillars, all of them are listed in prose. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the response.

To clarify, my concern isn’t about removing criticism — it’s that the article presents a version of Independent Together that omits the group’s own stated positions (its pillars), while focusing heavily on external characterisations.

Saying the pillars are “included in prose” isn’t the same as neutrally listing them or acknowledging their source. I’ve asked for them to be added or discussed, and those requests have been blocked or reverted. That’s the core issue.

The external commentary (including on [redacted]) shows a broader pattern that should concern any Wikipedia reader — especially in the context of an upcoming election. I'm not alleging a conspiracy, but the bias is clear and ongoing.

I’m new to Wikipedia. I’m not a politician — I’m a regular Wellingtonian trying to ensure fair and accurate representation.

I accept Wikipedia’s sourcing policy and will work to suggest revisions using reliable secondary sources. I just hope this conversation leads to a more balanced, neutral article.

— DanMilward Danmilward (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

it’s that the article presents a version of Independent Together that omits the group’s own stated positions (its pillars), while focusing heavily on external characterisations.

The article contains all of the pillars as listed in the sources, the article "focuses heavily on external characterisations" in so far as that is how Wikipedia works, we say what the sources say, not what the subject of the article wants it to say.

Saying the pillars are “included in prose” isn’t the same as neutrally listing them or acknowledging their source. I’ve asked for them to be added or discussed, and those requests have been blocked or reverted. That’s the core issue.

The information you want is already there, your edits have been reverted because you remove other info you don't like

The external commentary (including on [redacted]) shows a broader pattern that should concern any Wikipedia reader — especially in the context of an upcoming election. I'm not alleging a conspiracy, but the bias is clear and ongoing.

What does this even mean? What "broader pattern"? The people who edit Wikipedia have opinions, that's not the same as POV pushing on wiki. You on the other hand have repeatedly reverted the article to one that removes all criticism and frames the group in the way the group wants, all of which is a major conflict of interest as you are a candidate for the group. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I want to clarify my position one last time before escalating this formally.

I’m not trying to remove criticism — I’ve accepted and acknowledged it. My concern is that the article disproportionately weights those criticisms while refusing to clearly represent the group’s own publicly stated positions (e.g. pillars), even when phrased neutrally or cited.

Saying the information is "in prose" or that I’m removing things I “don’t like” is not the same as allowing space for a fair overview. I’ve repeatedly asked for discussion and compromise, and what I’ve received instead are reversions and accusations.

I'm not hiding my involvement. I’m participating in good faith and disclosing clearly. I’ve avoided making direct edits since the block and followed process. The same cannot be said for those coordinating external commentary and edits.

At this point, I’ll be taking this to ANI for review.

— DanMilward Danmilward (talk) 04:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• Admins do not determine article content, you should be having discussions on the article talk page to resolve this dispute. But admins do try to maintain order and that screenshot is disturbing as it shows editors casting aspersions without any responsibility to demonstrate there is any evidence behind their claims. I have quite a few editors who watch my talk page and I'd be interested in hearing what they think of this situation but I'm leaning towards an article page block for all three of you for undisclosed COI. Just a note that any further personal attack at other editors or edit-warring on this article is likely to result in a block. Please move this to the article talk page and if there is a WikiProject New Zealand, it wouldn't hurt to notify their members of this discussion on the WikiProject's talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks Liz — sincerely.

  Your response is the first one that’s felt genuinely fair and constructive. I agree this has gone beyond productive editing, and I completely accept your point about order needing to be maintained.

  Honestly, I’d rather see all three of us blocked from the article than continue in this kind of imbalance. It’s not democratic, and it’s clearly not working for anyone.

  I’m happy to move any further input to the article’s Talk page and will look into notifying the WikiProject NZ group as suggested. I appreciate your time, and especially your calm handling of this.

  — DanMilward Danmilward (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think I should be blocked from editing this page because I stopped someone from blatant COI editing. Like look at the page as it exists, it is not unbalanced per reliable sources that exist. The only person who is saying that it is is the COI editor.

  I don't see what the potential undisclosed COI is I would have, is tweeting about something a COI? TheLoyalOrder (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks again Liz.

  Just to be clear I’ve never asked for criticism to be removed. I’ve been transparent about being new to Wikipedia and doing my best to work within the rules as I learn. It’s frustrating to be accused of bad faith or manipulation when all I’ve done is request balance and clarity — openly, and on the record.

  I’ve only pushed for a fairer structure that also includes the group’s official positions, and for the article to avoid framing that implies political affiliations not supported by fact. That’s not whitewashing — it’s a request for balance.

  I’m actively engaging with both TheLoyalOrder and IdiotSavant on the article’s Talk page in pursuit of neutrality.

  Neutrality shouldn’t be this hard. As a sign of my own sincerity: I would still prefer all three of us be blocked from the article in pursuit of neutrality than leave the status quo in place.

  I’ll continue the discussion there in good faith, as you've suggested. My goal from the start has been clarity and neutrality, not to win arguments or hide information. Appreciate your oversight on this.

  — DanMilward Danmilward (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  Just to be clear I’ve never asked for criticism to be removed

  This is true, he never asked for criticism to be removed, he just removed it himself several times and then got blocked for COI editing. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  I think the status quo where he is free to suggest edits on the page and then other editors can discuss them is fine (and what should have happened in the first place) TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  I’ve already acknowledged that I’m new to Wikipedia, that I made early mistakes, and that I’m now doing my best to follow the proper process — on the Talk page, using sources, and inviting discussion.

  Neutrality should not be this difficult. If the goal really is balance, then we should all be able to agree on a version of the article that sticks to verifiable facts and gives voters a fair, representative picture of the group.

  — DanMilward Danmilward (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  the article follows NPOV, the information is cited from all available reliable sources I could find. Your free to suggest edits and provide further reliable sources, but this article as it is serves as a summary of what reliable sources say. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  Understood. I appreciate that you believe the current article reflects NPOV.

  But as I’ve said — this isn’t about the existence of sources, it’s about how they’re used and weighted. If we only reflect critical characterisations and omit (or minimise) the group’s own stated platform, it distorts perception — even if every sentence is technically cited.

  I’m here to work toward a version that includes both perspectives fairly, sourced and neutrally. That’s what voters deserve, and I believe it’s in line with Wikipedia’s mission too.

  — DanMilward Danmilward (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  if all the reliable sources on the group are critical, than the wiki article will be critical. tbh I dont think this article is overly critical in tone. like it has a section on the positions of the group, on the campaign, and then on criticisms reported in the media, if there a sources that report more positively I'll happily add them TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit request: Clarify 'political ticket' description

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Cloventt: Hi David — thanks again for your earlier comments and guidance.

I’d like to propose a minor but important wording change to the opening sentence of the article to better reflect Independent Together’s framing and how it has been perceived publicly:

Current:

Independent Together (IT) are a local-body political ticket that was established to contest the 2025 Wellington City Council election.

Proposed:

Independent Together (IT) is a civic-focused group contesting the 2025 Wellington City Council election.

Supporting sources:

- A May 2025 NZ Herald article reports that 64% of Wellingtonians oppose party politics on council ([NZ Herald](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/wellingtons-crown-observer-issues-warning-over-party-politics-round-the-council-table/WWZQQVB3PJEL3J52NM4JW7JKDI/)). - This is based on a Curia Research poll commissioned by Better Wellington ([Curia summary](https://www.curia.co.nz/2025/02/full-curia-better-wellington-poll-of-wellington/), [Scoop coverage](https://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=169559)). - The February 2025 Curia survey shows Independent Together candidates received broad support, reinforcing their non-partisan positioning.

This wording avoids the implied party-political structure of “political ticket” while retaining neutrality and reflecting how the group is understood in public polling and media.

Happy to adjust further if needed.

— DanMilward

Thanks Dan, my understanding is that in NZ we use the term "political ticket" to identify a local-body group that is working as a team, but that is not operating at the level of a central government party. For example, if an individual plans to put "Independent Together" as their affiliation on the ballot paper next to their name, that would mean they are running under that ticket. A ticket can have a single person, or be a group of people. Generally if multiple people are on a ticket, this represents some level of coordination between candidates and a shared policy platform. Based off all the media coverage I have so far read on this group, I am quite comfortable describing it as a political ticket or political group.

Your suggestion of "civic-focused group" is much more vague than the already-vague term "political ticket" so I would not support using it in this article. Happy for others to share their opinion on this subject to reach a consensus.David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 06:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Would you be okay with this?

Independent Together (IT) are a local-body political ticket that was established to contest the 2025 Wellington City Council election, guided by the simple philosophy that party politics should be kept out of council. Their leader and mayoral candidate is incumbent Wellington city councillor Ray Chung. Danmilward (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I've just had a look at other articles and this would be an unusual addition for a first-sentence in an article. Typically the first sentence might mention a political leaning (e.g. centre-left, right-wing, etc) but you have already expressed that you would not be happy with this. I think the current wording is neutral and consistent with other similar articles, so I think it does not need to be changed.David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 07:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit request: Platform Pillars

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Cloventt: Hi David.

I'd like to see Independent Together's pillars in the position and platform section.

I believe a good primary source is the official Independent Together campaign website – that explicitly lists the Five Pillars under the heading

OUR FIVE PILLARS

ZERO RATES INCREASES – Keeping Wellington affordable

BACK TO BASICS – No more debt spiral

ACCESS BRINGS BUSINESS – Planes, trains, buses and automobiles

NO TO PARTY POLITICS – A Council for everyone

A SAFER CITY – Wellington, where everyone feels secure

Source: https://voteforit.nz/policy-pillars/

This directly supports the Wikipedia text regarding “core pillars” covering affordability, essential services, accessibility, safety, and opposing party politics. It neatly aligns with what’s already written and gives a verifiable citation. Proposed action: I’ll update the article to cite the campaign site for that section. That way, the description of the Five Pillars is backed by a clear, official source – not just interpretation in secondary media. Danmilward (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

An encyclopaedic way of phrasing this would be: The group is campaigning on what they describe as their "five pillars": zero rates increases; getting back to basics and reducing debt; improving access to the city for planes, trains, buses and automobiles; rejecting party politics; and a safer Wellington where everyone feels secure.

References

David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 06:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks David – appreciate the clean inclusion of the Pillars in encyclopaedic form. I just learned something :)

A small leap for some local indies. A giant leap for neutrality. Danmilward (talk) 07:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Mis-information, mis-quotes & unsubstantiated innuendo

This post is full of mis-information, mis-redirections, mis-quotes & unsubstantiated innuendo. It is hugely biased and clearly written by those with a political agenda to smear those they disagree with. Please note that the media in NZ is EXTREMELY LEFT wing and are given to fabrication and are happy to seek out quotes from the most unreliable sources and/or to use quotes out of context, if they will support their political points of view. Sadly the highest rated NZ mainstream media group, only has a miserable Trust level of just 33% of the population. They are not a reliable nor trust worthy source information, particularly on any topics that may have any political overtones.

And obviously the Editors on this article are also extremely happy to use these untrusted sources to create this article - which clearly shows that they are NOT the neutral arbitrator as they claim, but are part of the biased problem.

Given that attempts to correct the article are continually blocked, I request that the entire article/page is removed, with a ban implemented to stop a new one from being created. As, if only false, mis-leading & biased information from dubious sources is to be used in these posting, with no ability to offer balanced rebuttals, then what is the point of Wiki?

Has Wiki just become another tool in the campaign arm of far left political parties in NZ & their pet editors?

I sincerely hope not, but it is looking that way. 4real4all (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

If there are issues in this article, then you should provide quotes of the problematic content and explain what the problem is. Make suggestions in the format "change X to Y" with reasons for doing so, making sure to cite reliable sources. Complaining about certain people or websites does not get anyone anywhere. ―Panamitsu (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Can you suggest some secondary sources that are both reliable and verifiable that provide the information you would like to include? Nil🥝 (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Kia ora, the edits you repeatedly attempted to make were not constructive, largely did not include citations to reliable secondary sources, and did not improve the article; I presume they were reverted for that reason.

The content of those edits also suggests you may have a conflict of interest on this subject, please note that we have a process for CoI editing that you are welcome to follow. If you have specific constructive edits you'd like to suggest, this is the place to suggest them. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 07:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit request: Campaign Section

Request to Update Campaign Section – Summary of Proposed Changes

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi @Cloventt: Hi David. here’s a transparent list of changes I’m proposing to improve the encyclopaedic tone and factual clarity of the “Campaign” section. Keen for feedback or edits to get this to consensus.

Summary of Edits:

1. Maintained all existing citations and added none – only reordered or clarified what’s already sourced.

2. Reworded the mana whenua quote context – specified that the quote was Williams’ personal view, and added that it was not endorsed by Independent Together to reflect the source nuance and avoid misattribution.

3. Added a missing detail from Williams’ speech – noted his comments on previous governments funding “wellness” over core council services, balancing tone.

4. Clarified Chung’s debt figure misstatement – retained the correction and added that Chung acknowledged the mistake, but reaffirmed concern over the confirmed $1.2m/week cost.

5. Slight rewording of quotes – updated phrasing for Boyce and campaign video summary to better reflect neutral, encyclopaedic tone.

All content is from the existing two sources: Stuff (5 June 2025) NZ Herald (6 June 2025)

Happy to tweak wording further to meet style or neutrality expectations. — DanMilward 🧊

Updated version

Chung held his mayoral campaign launch in June at the Public Trust Building to a crowd of over 200 people. Philanthropist Mark Dunajtschik and former National MP Aaron Gilmore were in attendance. Alistair Boyce of Better Wellington opened the event, describing the mayoral race as "a Little versus honest Ray".

Broadcaster Peter Williams introduced Chung. Williams criticised mana whenua representation on local councils as "abhorrent" and "undemocratic", a statement which drew criticism and was not officially endorsed by Independent Together. He also spoke about financial responsibility in local government, citing concerns about spending on wellness initiatives over core services.

A campaign video played during the event showed archival footage of Wellington events such as The Lord of the Rings premieres and CubaDupa, juxtaposed with more recent images of empty shops and streets. Chung narrated the video, emphasising the need for "more common sense" and "better financial management". Boyce welcomed Chung to the stage, calling him "the hope for the downtrodden ratepayer" and a "nemesis of the deep state".

Chung reiterated his commitment to zero rates increases. He advocated for a smaller council and a growing population to ease the rates burden. During his speech, Chung stated the council was paying $2 million a week servicing debt. Councillor Geordie Rogers disputed this figure, saying it was $1.2 million—a figure later confirmed by council officials. Chung acknowledged the mistake, but noted that even $1.2 million per week represented a significant financial burden on the city. Danmilward (talk) 09:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Imho the third paragraph seems unnecessary and reads like WP:promo, so I would personally suggest it's not included.

Even though it has been reported by a reliable secondary source, that doesn't automatically make it encyclopedic. Nil🥝 (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Nil. Nice to meet a fellow gamer.

Parts of the third paragraph were actually written by the original writer.

I assume this is the bit you are concerned about "Chung narrated the video, emphasising the need for "more common sense" and "better financial management".

In which case, would a more encyclopaedic version like this be better "The video featured narration by Chung, who advocated for increased fiscal responsibility and the application of practical, commonsense approaches to governance.”

If not, can you please suggest a more neutral way to phrase this without removing it. The page needs to be balanced. Danmilward (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Kia ora, Dan.

"a statement which drew criticism and was not officially endorsed by Independent Together." is not something found in the source

"He advocated for a smaller council and a growing population to ease the rates burden." the bolded bit is not said by the source

"Chung acknowledged the mistake, but noted that even $1.2 million per week represented a significant financial burden on the city." the source doesn't say the bolded part

Cheers TheLoyalOrder (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

As per the comment by TheLoyalOrder, the sources do not verify these additions, so they would not be appropriate to add. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 23:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

References

Request to Edit: Criticism

Add new paragraph between 2nd & 3rd paragraph under section Criticism.

However, the Business panel, for the non-political group, Vision for Wellington, has identified $2.8b in council savings, which supports the assertions by the Independent Together team that are zero rate increases are not only possible, but can be achieved without affecting core and essential council services.

Source: https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/360721024/vision-wellington-finds-28b-council-savings 4real4all (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Reading the linked article, the proposed edit sounds too much like WP:synthesis.

Unless IT is to adopt Tong's proposals in their entirety, it would be inappropriate to use Tong's calculations to support IT's claims.

As per the article, Tong's numbers would involve cutting a lot of services (e.g. closing down the zoo and Freyburg pool, and cutting library funding) that IT have not said they'd cut. Nil🥝 (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Your assertion that IT would have to adopt Tong's proposal in its ENTIRETY seems a very over the top requirement, when the reference to the article is only to say that other reputable and highly qualified individuals have also been able to

identify $2.8B of waste.

There seems to be a double standard here. You allow Rebecca Matthews ([redacted]) to make claims about what is financially possible and to falsely accuse the IT team of telling "a lie". Then we put up a counter to this, to show that it is not "a lie" and that other reputable people and organisations have also done the work too show that it is possible to achieved zero rates increase, but you reject it.

I have removed a WP:BLP violation from the above post.-Gadfium (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing neutrality here. 4real4all (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

we can only put what sources say. Stuff reported on Cllr Matthew's opinion, no one has reported that Tong's views are IT views. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I am unable to view the full article, but it seems that this 17 June article from The Post mentions both Tong's comments and that they could be a potential blueprint for IT's cuts. So, perhaps that could be the basis of something?-Radicuil (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Good spotting, I will use this. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 23:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Councillor Ray Chung (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

text of the email

the NZ Herald has published the text of the email, should this be included in a quote box? Unsure on this, i think its useful context but also maybe BLP issues? thoughts? TheLoyalOrder (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

We don't need the text. The existing decription is enough.-Gadfium (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Normally would say it's a BLP issue, but it appears Whanau was the one who provided it for publication.

In any case, I don't think having the full email is encyclopaedic, and including it may be giving it undue weight in an article that's about the wider ticket (and not just Chung's career as a councillor). I think the descriptions with linked refs are enough. Nil🥝 ^Talk 00:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

The description is enough, no need for the full text. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 01:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this section really belongs on this page anyway, as it's not explicitly tied to the IT ticket and occurred before it was even formed.

I feel this would be more appropriate on a page about Ray Chung himself.-118.149.82.199 (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

It's notable as it was released during the campaign, and is about the leader of IT. But because of the very reasons you raise, it's important that we don't give it undue weight within the article.

(Also worth noting, Ray Chung is a redirect to this article). Nil🥝 ^Talk 01:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I still think it would be worth someone creating a page for Chung himself, as he is notable beyond just his connection to IT.-118.149.82.199 (talk) 04:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Connection with Better Wellington?

Currently the article has "The group was endorsed by Better Wellington, a right-wing campaign group" under the Endorsements sub-heading, which seems to downplay the reported connection between the two groups:

• Today,The Post says "Better Wellington, which is behind the [IT] ticket."
• From June, they have a BW spokesperson speaking on behalf of Chung's campaign
• In May, they said IT is "closely linked to [BW]"
• RNZ today called BW "a group linked to [IT]"
• A Salient news article this week put in bluntly by saying "[IT] is effectively the electoral wing of [BW]".

I'm unsure of what the best wording (or section of the article) would be, but the current text definitely feels like it's lacking as it's much more than an "endorsement". Nil🥝 ^Talk 02:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I've tried rewriting that section, changed header from endorsements to Better Wellington since there arent other endorsements at the moment. Salient is a student paper, is it a good source? idk TheLoyalOrder (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Salient employs paid editors & reporters, and is a member of the New Zealand Media Council, so the articles in its news section are trustworthy enough and are required to follow NZMC standards.

That said, its staff aren't as experienced as mainstream outlets, so would apply apply some discretion if solely relying on it for contentious issues. Nil🥝 ^Talk 02:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Maybe for clarity as I see this si resolved, but when I first stumbled on this article, none of the sources said that BW were "behind" the group. They only said they were associated or endorsed. Subsequent media reporting has established that relationship so it makes sense to clarify in the article.

I have also just redirected Better Wellington to here for now. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 03:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I thought that would have been the case, as it's only been in the last two months that the relationship's been further established. Good thinking with the redirect too. Nil🥝^Talk 04:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:CRITS

That essay is an essay, but my knee-jerk reaction is WHOAH, Independent_Together#Criticism is a large section. 845 words, and the rest of the article is 715 words, including WP:LEAD.

Based on that, this article might have a WP:NPOV problem. Consider if content in the crit-section can be included in other ways, per chronology or sub-topic. Crit-sections should be avoided if possible, they tend to become shit-magnets. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree, and actually much of that section is not really criticism. I think a better approach would be to include those details in the campaign chronology. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 20:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

i have reoranised without removing anything, an improvement? TheLoyalOrder (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I certainly think so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I was doing the same thing and I've clobbered your edits. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 21:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Given that the clown is specifically parodying this group I think it does fit here. I had left it under the criticism section, along with the commentary from some satirist in The Post. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 21:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

feel free to add it back TheLoyalOrder (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll add it back, the clown campaign is clearly a parody of this group but isn't noteworthy enough for its own wiki page (yet). TreeReader (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Chocmilk03 you've deleted the satire campaign and explained that "Per talk page comment, remove satire/parody comments"

The above thread is what I assume you are referring to. Could you please support your decision to revert my edit? I don't want to edit war and I think that there was agreement in this thread supporting inclusion of the satire campaign. TreeReader (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@TreeReader: Yep, sorry not to have explained more below. I removed it because I felt it seemed an odd/irrelevant inclusion potentially leaning towards not being NPOV. Although this isn't a BLP article it does relate to BLPs so seems wisest to err on the side of caution. I can't think of many examples of NZ political figures/parties where satirical takes or parodies are given much airtime on Wikipedia. Colin Craig for instance there would be a ton of material out there, but his page sticks to the facts.

That said, I don't feel super strongly about it so wouldn't object if you wanted to add back - it's well-sourced and probably doesn't have the undue weight problem now there's no "Criticism" section. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! That is a good point to treat the article a bit like a BLP. You're right that it fits better now just as part of the timeline of events. Anyone disagree? Otherwise I'll add it back in a bit. I've always had a soft spot for parody political parties so I admit that's influencing me! TreeReader (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

My only concern is that there's only been passing mentions of them (a line or paragraph in routine politics coverage), so I'm a little hesitant about whether it's notable enough to include. I won't object if others want to include it however. Nil🥝^Talk 23:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Disputed Neutrality of the article

I have added a POV template, as the article appears to cast Independent Together in a negative light. The dossier and email sections specifically show some bias against Independent Together. I would appreciate it if the neutrality of the article is restored. Lachlan R (talk) 08:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Is there anything specific that you think needs to be changed?

From what I can see, everything in those sections is WP:VERIFIABLE and well-enough cited to reliable media. I think also the coverage of those topics is not WP:UNDUE as there has been an enormous amount of coverage of those specific scandals in media, relative to the organisation's coverage as a whole.

Our job on Wikipedia is to neutrally summarise what has been written about a subject in reliable secondary sources. As discussed elsewhere on this talk page, the media coverage of this group has been overwhelmingly negative, so naturally the article includes a lot of that.

Overall, I think the NPOV template can be removed. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 08:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

The politics in councils have gotten quite dirty these days. We should avoid such politics if it influences bias. As for the email, there is the possibility that the timing of its public release was a political tactic intended to discredit Ray Chung (according to Chung himself). Although this is mentioned, his regrets about the email, and his apology to the Mayor are not, despite both being important points from a few days ago already. It's important to include and listen to both sides of the story.

If you ask me, my opinion is that they're both in the wrong, so it would make more sense for an unbiased view on the situation. Lachlan R (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with David. NPOV does not mean ignoring anything negative, it means covering the article's content in a neutral way - sometimes, the subject of the article means this leans more one way than the other. Nothing here seems undue or unjustified, and rather not including it would be more an NPOV violation. Turnagra (talk) 09:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

(Just noting, his apology to the mayor is mentioned in the article) Nil🥝^Talk 09:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Good point, I've added a mention of his apology to Whanau and his stated belief that this is a political attack. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 09:32, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

My sense is that the article doesn't violate WP:NPOV, and the dossier/email sections are fairly written. I did spot some (minor) things in the article that could potentially be improved, though:

• The second paragraph of the 'Positions and platform' section seems to imply that the group has no plan for how they would avoid increasing rates. Paragraph 4 then seems to contradict this ("The plan to achieve the zero rates increase includes..."). That may be because the second paragraph was written earlier at a time when there wasn't clarity, but could be updated.
• "A Curia Market Research poll in February had Chung as the candidate with the most name recognition and with the highest approval rating, though this was before Andrew Little entered the race[2] and before Tory Whanau dropped out.[11]" There seems to be a little bit of WP:SYNTH here. Is it possible to add a later poll instead of caveating the outcome of the earlier poll? i.e. "A poll in February said X, a poll in June said Y"?
• There are a few references in the article to satirical/parodic takes on the group, e.g. Dave Armstrong's comments and the Pennywize campaign. These seem a bit trivial/non-encyclopaedic and I'd suggest trimming them out. (In fact, I'm going to go ahead and do that, but happy to discuss if anyone has a differing view.)

Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Woops - I made the edit referred to in my last bullet point and then noticed that this had been previously discussed, most recent talk page entry above. While the position of these points in the article is better than a standalone 'criticism' section, I still think they're tangential and not needed. Again, happy to discuss. Chocmilk03 (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

the source that says the bit about the poll also notes that the poll was before Little entered the race, you could remove the bit about tory whanau dropping out but it seems relevant context to me. i dont think there's been another poll TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

i feel like the bit on their plan might need to be reworded. like the source says that Allistair Boyce said that Louise Tong's plan could be a blueprint of what Better Wellington wants, and IT is linked to BW.

so its like not saying the group thinks this, its saying someone related to the group said that someone elses plan could be used TheLoyalOrder (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

i've tried rewriting a bit of that to be more clear what the source says TheLoyalOrder (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Given the general consensus, I've gone and removed the NPOV flag. Turnagra (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, good call. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 10:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Ray Chung

As anons have created a separate article on Ray Chung, should some of the material from this article, e.g. the email, be moved there, or copied, or a summary be made in one article and a fuller version in the other?-Gadfium (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I think, for now, a summary should be made in Chung's article, as copying it across will mean it's given undue weight in what's otherwise a stub. As the email had knock on effects to the wider ticket (such as candidate resignations and loss of donors), this is still the most appropriate place for it for the time being. Once Chung's article grows beyond a stub, I'd be more open to moving it there (with a summary here). Nil🥝^Talk 23:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I've added a summary to Chung's article.-Gadfium (talk) 06:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I have started expanding Ray Chung's article using content from the Independent Together page. I think that about half of the material in the Independent Together article focuses on Chung. I was thinking of transferring the Chung-centric content to the Ray Chung article and condensing the email-related scandal to about two or three paragraphs. The Chung article could also expand on his early life and career, first term as a councillor (particularly the pre-2025 period). Chung has surfaced in the news prior to the 2025 email as a political opponent of Tory Whanau. Stuff and The Post would probably have more coverage on Wellington issues. Let me know what you think. Andykatib (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2025 (UTC)