Talk:Green League

Prologue
"Vihreä Liitto is no longer a protest party or an alternative movement, but a respectable option for those young, well educated, urban voters in the south who cannot support SDP or the Conservatives (Kokoomus). Its blind spot are the rural countryside, particularly municipalities experiencing strong outward migration."

Ehm? Why it is such a respectable option? What does it drive that SDP or Kokoomus does not drive? As the article presents no information on this point, it is only fair that it is NPOV modified. Finlander 23:49, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Why is it stil called the GREEN LEAGUE when the Party does not use that name. why not the Greens as the Party calls itself and also teh members. cf UK Green Party now called The Green Party of England and Wales OR The Scottish Green Party as apropriate, NOT the People Party nor Ecology Party. I do not know why this chanmge is not here on the website or if there is a rational for keeping the old name (that is why I dio not change it and start and edit war). (user markus petz) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.246.71.16 (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Position
The Green League is, like almost any other green party, a modern left-wing party. I am a member of The Socialistic Peoples Party in Denmark, which is a green socialistic party, and we share values and politics with green parties in all topics. The Green Leagues social- and labour policy is so much based on solidarity and democracy that they have to be a modern left-wing party. I think the reason that many greens don't wan't to be called left is because the left-right scale usually defines socialism vs. liberalism. I that way the left-right scale is completly outdated. But if left-right scale is a question of how much you want to change society(like in Denmark), then almost all green parties, including The Green League of Finland, is left-wing. Because making a society based on ecology, solidarity, radical democarcy, non-violence, sustainability and respect for diversity that is changing society. That is why I have changed the text of position and the ideology part of this article(Loens 22:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC))


 * Well I'm a member of the Finnish Green league and its party council, and I can tell you that the Finnish party is centre-left (maybe more centre than left), not left-wing. That is the common perception in Finland and there is research on the supporters of the Green League which clearly demonstrates this, too.


 * For example in a resent study by Tuomo Martikainen and Sami Fredriksson on young voters in Helsinki region 28,1 % supported the greens. Of these voters
 * 33,5 % were in modern left
 * 34,9 % were in centre-right
 * 5,3 % were market libarals
 * 4,3 % were neo-conservatives
 * 22,1 % had no strong position


 * These classifications have to understood, naturally, in the Finnish context, where those who are in centre-right are for a strong welfare state but also favour market mechanism. (Maybe quite close to "Ny moderaterna" in Sweden but also close to the Finnish Social Democratic party.) -Samulili 09:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A similar categorization has been made among all voters in Finland but I don't have that at hand. If I remember correctly, the majority of green voters were in centre-left and equally large minorities in centre-right and left. -Samulili 09:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I have seen that you have re-edited some of my changes to the articel about the Green League of Finland. First I want to say that I don't either wants to start an edit war :-). As I have explained, my party(The Socialist People's Party from Denmark) have started to cooperate closely with the greens parties, because we think that they, like us, are to the left of the social democratic parties(left-wing). My party have recieved an observer post in the European Green Party and our MEP is in the Greens-EFA group. I still see green parties(including the Green League) as left-wing, beacause of there politics and what it is based on. But I am almost satisfied with the current formulation in the article, and therefore I don't want change it, if it remains as it is now. Have a nice day.(Loens 15:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:Vihreä Liitto Logo Aug06.gif
Image:Vihreä Liitto Logo Aug06.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Samulili (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ideology section
The section is clearly in a non-NPOV tone, and should be rewritten. - Quirk (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it's fixed - Quirk (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the middle paragraph, which had a distinct anti-Green POV slant. It contained two major unsourced claims (that "some of the party's leaders" came from an "orthodox communist" background and that the current chair had contemplated joining the tiny Finnish communist party before joining the Greens), and the one sourced claim (about a study showing similarities in Greens' and communists' opinions) was pretty misleading. Ezzeius (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The role of Heidi Hautala
Why is Heidi Hautala mentioned as "president" of the party? I don't know what that even means in this context and the Finnish Wikipedia doesn't mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.250.242 (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Parliamentary representatives
The representatives and MEPs may need to be updated following the movements in 2011. Heidi Hautala will return to be a minister. Her MEP seat probably taken by Jyrki Kasvi, as Cronberg is unlikely to return to active politics. – Kaihsu (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was wrong: Tarja Cronberg will be there. – Kaihsu (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Green League. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104210902/http://www.hs.fi/politiikka/artikkeli/Vihreiden+j%C3%A4senm%C3%A4%C3%A4r%C3%A4+kasvanut+r%C3%A4j%C3%A4hdysm%C3%A4isesti/1135267497920 to http://www.hs.fi/politiikka/artikkeli/Vihreiden+j%C3%A4senm%C3%A4%C3%A4r%C3%A4+kasvanut+r%C3%A4j%C3%A4hdysm%C3%A4isesti/1135267497920

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Pentti Linkola?
What is Pentti Linkola's involvement with the Greens? Should he really be mentioned in the See also section? Pessimistipasta (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Social liberalism
I don't think it necessarily has to go into the infobox. This is because Green liberalism itself contains social liberal elements. Mureungdowon (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. Vacant0 (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @U|Mureungdowon and @U|Vacant0, the source itself states "green social liberalism". If only green liberalism was necessary then it would say that. Regardless we should stick to what the source says as much as possible. Therefore, I think both should be included. Helper201 (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd rather just keep "green politics" in the infobox considering that there are three citations that back up that ideology, in contrary to "green social liberalism" which is only backed up by one source. Vacant0 (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * you could add it to the ideology section Braganza (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)