Talk:Green party

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Renaming Pro-War section to something more neutral[edit]

I've read over the debates around the history of the pro-war paragraph, and how & why it was merged into this page, and I feel that it should be given a more neutral title, as Pro-War seems to be non-NPOV.

I don't have a problem with the content or the politics of the paragraph, just the title. As the greens gain more and more political power, a lot of hard choices have to be made, and how to create/balance security with peace is a dichotomy, and I beleive that that is the real conclusion of the article and the paragraph.

Creating security through peace is a long term concept, perhaps not suited to dealing with existing armed conflicts, but better suited to averting it in the future. Balancing security with peace is still aiming for that long term peace, but taking part in armed conflict to assist that peace and/or prevent damage to environment/markets/people.

As the greens gain more political power, they will certainly have to formulate responses to existing & unavoidable armed conflicts. Whether different parties choose the idealogical pacifism or pragmatic armed intervention is the "debate" that this paragraph is refering to.

I propose that the paragraph be renamed to Use of Armed Force or some similar words. --rakkar (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It is a good idea. That said, this entire series of articles remains in a rather unresearched state. I worked rather hard on a series of merges and redirects over a year ago; I didn't add to the research or content, but I improved the organization in the hopes that the articles would then be easier to edit. However, the main articles in the series have changed very little since then. Fishal (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it belongs here at all - and especially not in the section entitled "influence". It's more of a match to the "critique" section of the Green Politics page. Also when considering the NPOV aspects of this discussion, it might be valuable to consider this article from the same source also written last year The Australian Democrats and the Politics of Peace. Chrismaltby (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ChrisMaltby, the green politics page would be a more suitable home for the info, perhaps with slightly less words. --rakkar (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German Greens were not the first Green Party[edit]

The world's first green party began in Hobart 1972, followed a year later by the world's first national Green Party established in New Zealand in 1973- the Values Party (and was re-established as the Green Party of Aotearoa in 1990). The German Greens Party sought permission from the Values Party to use the 'four principles'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.200.184 (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also believe the New Zealand Value's party and its successor the Green party need more on this page as it was one of the first green parties, the first to win a seat under the FPP system, one of the biggest green parties(in share of vote) world wide and the third biggest party in New Zealand(which is unusal for a green party)-Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.114.166 (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formation[edit]

There is a reason, albeit not one that justifies the wording 'formed between 1937-1965', for the Green Party foundation to be described as evolving over that period of time. In England, in particular, the party was a political pressure group roughly similar (and my apologies for the incomplete comparison) to the Sierra Club, until it was recognized that they had sufficient support to become a party. So the people are the same, the logo is the same, the name is similar. But of course, it wasn't really a party then, and it wasn't forming in the usual sense. Anarchangel (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capital G[edit]

Can anyone please add a source to prove this statement: "The distinction is very often made between "green parties" (lower-case letters) and "Green Parties" (capital letters)."

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous peoples[edit]

I have removed the reference to indigenous peoples that was present in the first paragraph. This does not appear to be a policy in the United States (it's not mentioned in the Wikipedia article) nor in the United Kingdom, and therefore does certainly not constitute a worldwide view, as the article is supposed to be. There is a concept known as indigenous British, which is largely talked about by the British National Party, but it is a concept rejected by most (if not all) other parties, including the Green Party of England and Wales. In fact, it appears the indigenous British article has recently been deleted, I suspect, due to the overtly political nature of the very concept. --Rebroad (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Killian, prominent green software engineer, up for deletion[edit]

He has 26 patents and describes himself as belonging to the Green Party. I urge readers to weigh in on the decision to delete his article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl Killian. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per AjaxSmack, Rannpháirtí anaithnid and 70.24.247.66. DrKiernan (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Green party → Green Party – These are mostly real, capitalized parties. Apteva (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • The parties themselves are called "Green Party" but this article is not a list of parties with this name but is instead a description of Green parties in general. Some of these parties mentioned in the article don't even have "Green" in their name (e.g., Ecolo; see Category:Green political parties for others). The current title works fine. —  AjaxSmack  00:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this isn't a singular unitary movement across the globe, but separate instances, so this is about the concept of a green party, instead of say Liberal International. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, courteously. This is a tricky one. We have Socialist Party, but Communist party. It appears every party listed at Socialist Party has that phrase in its name, however. There's Liberal Party, with a few parties without that exact phrase, and Conservative Party and Progressive Party are dabs. I'd like to see these articles standardized one way or another. As this article says, "There are distinctions between 'green' parties and 'Green' parties." The same could probably say about socialist, communist, liberal, or conservative parties and I think when it comes to Wikipedia we should not capitalize if in doubt. On the other hand, since every party listed at Conservative Party has that phrase, perhaps we should treat the article title as a proper noun as well. (Nutshell: I support consistency and prefer sentence case capitalization, but feel much more strongly about the former.) --BDD (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree that this is not about a singular Green Party, but various Green parties that differ in policy and ethos. Zarcadia (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Title of the article is not a proper noun. The article is about the concept of a green party (I'd use a small 'g' for green too in the article), rather than individual examples of "Green Party"s. --RA (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving, but Oppose destination – The article lead, The Green party is a formally organized political party in nearly 90 countries around the world... makes it sound like the Green Party is a multinational corporation. Where are their world headquarters? If I am correct in my assumption that the Green Party in Australia is no more affliated with the Green Party in America than the NY Conservative Party is affiliated with the UK Conservative Party, then let's bring back some plural title that makes it clear that all these parties are independent. We can return the title to Worldwide green parties, or some other plural title like Green parties—and rewrite the lead. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC) For example, Liberal parties redirects to Liberalism by country—that's the type of article we have here, and the title should be similar. – Wbm1058 (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strange that that doesn't redirect to Liberal Party, isn't it? I agree with the need for standardization, but I prefer the more concise titles. --BDD (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as proposed, but on the surface I like the suggestion of Green parties as a potential move destination. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
Move log
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Competing move proposal[edit]

Green Party (disambiguation) → Green Party – per Democratic Party, Republican Party, Conservative Party, Democratic Liberal Party, Liberal Democratic Party, and even The Greens, which are all disambiguations or WP:SETINDEX.

Please participate in discussion at Talk:Green Party (disambiguation), thanks – Wbm1058 (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closer: please note history at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Green_Party&action=history Apteva (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment TBH that dab page could simply be merged in here. --RA (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the place of greenism in the political spectrum[edit]

I wonder whether we could consider green parties part of syncretic politics, or more specifically the third way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.72.132 (talk) 12:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Violence? But what about taxation?[edit]

The article three times mentions "non-violence" as being a core principle of the Greens. However, Greens tend to be strongly associated with socialism, and socialism itself is typically dependent on theft of money by means of taxation, said taxation being backed up by the threat of violence. See the principles of Libertarianism, which classifies taxation as being theft. Shouldn't we condition Greens' claimed "non-violence" on a limitation, such as "Greens support non-violence, except where they want to take money in the form of taxation away from the people they oppose and vilify"? 67.5.241.97 (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are they advocating violence against people they oppose? Sources? There are many different ideas around taxation within liberal ideas, tax being theft is only one, and it wouldn't be relevant to this article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielbeetham (talk • contribs) 09:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party Of Austria[edit]

Austrias green party is (i think) the strongest green party in europe right now (national around 12%, present in all major cities, even some number one results in regional capitals). They are in coalitions in 4 of 9 austrian provinces (until a few months ago they had even five but lost one this year), also in the capital: vienna. Since you mostly hear about political right wing stuff when you hear about austria, maybe its worth mentioning that there is a strong, solid, green movement here too.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Green party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Green party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the article use the term "non-violence" instead of "pacifism"?[edit]

Another euphemism in the article such as "social justice". How about socialism?

62.226.93.145 (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Green party in Germany supported the first foreign mission of the german Bundeswehr in Kosovo in 1999, the first since the second world war[edit]

How can anybody seriously believe that this kind of parties are "non-violent" like the introduction of the article falsely claims?

The Greens also supported force in their history. Pacifism has never worked and only encourages evil.


62.226.93.145 (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is some logic in that. Can't be generalized for all, altought social jusitice and enviromentalism yes. So ok. More what is said by user hmmm that is private conclusion and this is not a forum. Nubia86 (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Green_party&oldid=1218563813"