Talk:Independent Together

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

  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).

  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).

  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).

  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).

  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).

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)

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:

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)

@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)